i^\ 


M^  tf.t:|- ff^jl 


*      NOV  22 1923      *j 


Division    "2)5500 
Section       • »   *  *   * 


SHORT  ESSAYS 


IN 


*     NOV  22  192: 
'^^„,  ■ — ^-— 


Biblical  Criticism 


REPRINTED  FROM  THE 
CHRISTIAN  STANDARD    1893-1904 

BY 

y 
John  William  McGarvey,  LL.D. 

PRESIDENT  OF  THE  COLLEGE  OF  THE  BIBLE 
LEXINGTON.  KY. 


THE  STANDARD  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 
aNQNNATI,  O. 


Copyright,  igi*^, 

BY  THE 

Standard  Publishing  Company, 
Cincinnati,  O. 


PREFACE 


The  occasion  of  the  writing  and  the  first 
publication  of  the  essays  in  this  volume,  is 
set  forth  under  the  heading  ^'Announcement'^ 
(p.  1).  These  are  selected  from  the  volumes 
of  the  Standard  for  the  years  1893-1904,  for  this 
more  permanent  form  of  publication,  because 
they  are  thought  to  have  some  permanent 
value.  Similar  essays,  in  a  department  in  the 
Standard  headed  ''Biblical  Criticism,"  have 
continued  to  appear  until  the  present  time 
(September,  1909),  and  a  second  volume  may 
be  selected  from  them,  should  the  present 
volume  meet  with  such  favor  as  to  justify  the 
publication  of  another. 

The  Author. 


TABLE    OF    COXTEXTS 


Table  of  Contents 


Abbott.  Lyman  : 

A  Modern  Prophet  on  the  Prophets 117 

The  New  Bible  and  the  Children 142 

Evolution  and  IMiracles 169 

Lyman  Abbott  and  Evolution 176 

Lyman  Abbott  on  Sacrifice 178.  186 

Washington  Gladden  on  Lyman  Abbott 199 

Lyman  Abbott  Analyzed 264 

Abbottism   297 

Name  the  Prophets 419 

Abraham : 

Why  Abraham  Went  to  Canaan 147 

Exit  Abraham   (Story  of  offering  up  Isaac) 402 

Agnostic.  Epitaph  of  an 137 

Alpacas.  The t^^^ 

Announcement    i 

"Apolegetic,  A  Xew"   (Professor  Terry) 424 

Apostolic  Age,  McGiffert's 268 

Arabia,  Those  Three  Years  in  (  Paul's  stay  in  Arabia) 248 

Argument.    A    Thin 16- 

Assured  Results,  One  of  the 468 

Atheism.  The  Darkness  of 140 

"Back  to  Christ,"  The  Cry 148 

Bible,  The: 

Hunting  a  Place  for  the  Bible 162 

"The  Bible  as   Literature" 184 

A  Tribute  to  the  Bible 290 

The  Historical  Study  of  the  Bible 442 

Myth  and  Fiction  in  the  Bible 445 

American  Bible  League 451 

Catch-phrases   1 50 


vl  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS 

Chedorlaomer's  Expedition 351 

Cheyne,  Professor : 

Cheyne  on  David  and  Goliath 19 

A  Sermon  by  a  "Critic" 84 

Chicken  Cocks  Banished  (On  Peter's  denial) 384 

Christ,  The  Reproach   of ^;^2 

Church,  The  : 

Shall  We  Let  Him  Alone?   (The  church's  attitude  toward 
unbelievers)     no 

Controversy,   Courtesy   in 323 

Conversation,  A   (Between  a  believer  and  an  unbeliever)  ...  .125 

Cornill,  Professor: 

Some  Choice  Extracts 370 

A  New  Daniel  Come  to  Judgment 336 

Counting  Noses   (Men  for  and  against  the  critical  theory)...   74 
Creation,  Is  There  a  Double  Account  of  ? 66 

Criticism  : 

Some   Definitions 5 

A  Specimen   ( Inaccuracy  of  critical  conclusions) 34 

A  Case  in  Point  (Inaccuracy  of  critical  conclusions) 312 

Parallel  Cases   (Inaccuracy  of  critical  conclusions) 204 

Criticism  and  Witticism   (Review  of  Christian-Evangelist)   yi 

Wisdom  of  the  Wise  (A  review  of  some  critics) 90 

A  Test  Case  of  Literary  Criticism 94 

Some  Crudities  of  Criticism 149 

What  of  It?  (Effects  of  criticism  on  belief) 151 

Criticism    in    Germany 201 

A  Reaction  in  Criticism 203 

A  Curiosity  in  Criticism 218 

Literary  Criticism  vs.  ?Iistorical  Criticism 236 

The   Pending   Controversy 288 

Contradictions    3^3 

The  New  Critical  Method 364 

The  Issue   Wrongly   Stated ?,7?> 

A  Problem  in  Higher  Criticism 2>77 

Archdeacon  Farrar  and  Higher  Criticism 39 

Daniel.   Farrar's 258 

Dates  of  Old  Testament  Books 6,  11,  15,  22,  30 

David's  Charge  Respecting  Joab  and  Shimei ^439 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS  vii 

Deborah  Slandered lo,  365 

Deuteronomy,   Driver  on 206 

Divine  Healing  Again 346 

Freedom,    Intellectual 218 

Free  Thought  and  Liberty  of   Speech 246 

Galileo.  The  Ghost  of  ( Cry  of  persecution  by  critics) 396 

Genesis : 

Genesis  According  to  Jesus 25 

The  Legends  of  Genesis 432 

Gideon,   Professor  Kent  Slanders 469 

God.  The  Fatherhood  of 435 

Gomer  (Reconciling  Hos.  i  :  2,  3  and  2:  1-3  with  God's  law  of 

unity  and  his  law  of  monogamous  marriage) 398 

Gospel  in  Brief.  The   (Review  of  Count  Tolstoi's  book) 191 

Green,  Professor.  Still  Another  Book  from 114 

Harper.  President: 

Harper's  Complaint.   President 233 

Harper   on    Sacrifice 380 

Hebrews,  Authorship  of 5(S 

Hell  and  the  Devil 208 

Heresy  Hunting .^ 383 

Hodges,  Rev.  Geo.  : 

An  Omniscient  Professor. 360 

Hommel,   Professor: 

Professor    Hommel's    Protest 212 

The  Reviewers  of  Professor  Hommel 261 

How  Far?  (A  parliament  of  a  religious  press) 458 

How   Shall   W'e   Spell   the   Xame?    (The  method   of   spelling 

Jehovah )     56 

How  Was  Jordan  Cut  Off?  (Israel  crossing  the  Jordan) 333 

Hymns.   The   Theology  of 237 

Inerrancy.  The  Question  of 36.  318 

Infidel : 

Who  Is  an  Infidel  ^ 183 

Random  Talk  by  an   Infidel 357 

An   Infidel   Tract 476 

In  One  Spirit 253 


viii  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS 

Inquiry,  A  Very  Serious  ( On  the  atonement ) 328 

Inspiration  : 

Inspiration    461 

Inspiration  of  Inveracity  (Dr.  Liddon) 15 

Jael's    Feat 10 

Jerusalem  Decree,  That  (Controversy  on  circumcision) 251 

"Jesus  and  Jonah"  in  Scotland  (President  McGarvey's  book).  153 

Jesus  on   Psalm   no 78 

Job   and   Ameni 121 

Jonah,  The  Sign  of 130 

Joshua's  Speech  to  the  Sun  and  Adoon 155 

Judas,  The  Death  of 457 

Judges,  Geo.  F.  Moore  on 112 

Kings   and    Chronicles 49 

Kuenen,  Professor : 

A  Higher  Critic  Criticized 99 

Lawyer : 

A  Lawyer  in  the  Arena 413 

As  a  Lawyer  Sees  It 420 

"Lead  Us  Not  into  Temptation" 311 

Letter  that  Killeth,  The   ( On  2  Cor.  t,:^) 160 

Lord's  Supper,  Is  There  a 341 

Mary   Magdalene 429 

Midianiti's,  The  Slaughter  of  the 339 

Miracles,  What  is  Proved  by 353 

Mistake,  A  Common  (The  claims  of  the  Gospel  writers) .  .  .  .  1J3 

Monuments,   Lessons   from   the 126,   132 

Moses    Did    What  ? 95 

Moses,  Why  Omitted  by  (Israel's  belief  in  a  future  life) 283 

Much  Ado  xAbout  Nothing  (Star  of  Bethlehem) 211 

Nabonidus,  The  Prayer  of 460 

Of  Himself?  or  of  Some  Other  Man?  (Philip  and  the  eunuch)   57 

Old,  Yet  Ever  New  (Questions  asked  in  all  ages) 344 

Ophir  and  Almug  Trees 339 

Paradox,  A  Critical   (Professor  Ryle) 97 

Paul  Did  Mean  What?  (On  inspiration  of  Scriptures) 467 

Paul's  Four   Hundred  and  Thirty  Years    (Harmonizing  Gal. 

3  :  17  and  Gen.  15  :  13) 43,  465 

Paul  Went  to  Jerusalem,  Why? 247 


TABLE   OF   COXTESTS  ix 

Penalty,  Did  He  Siififer  the  (Crucifixion  of  Jesus) 3^5 

Peter,   Wiser  than 400 

Pharaoh,  The  Title  of 120 

"Practical  Christianity,"  A  Symposium  on 170 

Public  Entry,  The  Time  of  (Jesus'  entry  into  Jerusalem) 405 

Puzzle.  A  Chronological 294 

Puzzle.  An  Old  (Incomprehensible  statements  in  the  Bible).. 310 

Questions.    Some 115.  221.  239 

Quotation.  Is  It  a  (Reference  in  Joshua  to  the  book  of  Jasher  )  .418 

Rationalism's  Claim  to  Exclusive   Scholarship 196 

Redactor.   A   Modern 135 

Red  Sea  Affair.   The 21 

Rome.  A  Step  Toward 265 

Science   of   Religion 338 

Singular  and  Plural   (Vagueness  of  Hebrew  nouns) 306 

Situated.  Not  Similarly 2)2)^ 

Song  of  Songs.  The  {  Solomon's  song ) 266 

Suggestion,  A  Good  ( University  of  Chicago) 324 

Teaching.   Freedom  in 362 

Tertius  (On  authorship  of  Romans) 416 

Thief,  The  Dying : 

"When  thou  comest  in  thy  kingdom" 410 

"Remember  me" 411 

Things.  The  Restoration  of  All   (Acts  3  :  21 ) 404 

"This  man  hath  done  nothing  amiss" 408 

Trine   Immersion 457 

Truth : 

The  Old  Truth  and  the  Xew 145 

Hospitality  to   Xew  Truth t>S- 

Unbelievers,  Crumbs  for 83 

Unbelief,  A  Sure  Cure  for 375 

Union  in  Division    (  Christian  union  ) 190 

Unitarians,  The 242 

Wellhausen.  Professor : 

Wellhausen's   Wrath   Kindled 167 

Slashing  at  the  Text 288 

The   Debt   Acknowledged 301 

Wellhausen's  Battle  at  the  Red  Sea 369 

What  Shall  We  Call  It?  (Abode  of  wicked) 458 


X  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS 

What  Would  Be  Left ?  (Apostles'  creed) 474 

Willett,  Prof.  H.  L. : 

Changing   the   Narrative 291 

Prof ersor  Willett  on   Creation 385 

Robbing   Joshua 391 

Would  They  Do  as  Well?    (Critics'  view  of  Old  Testament 
narratives )    308 

Yale,  The  Way  It  Goes  at 380 

Young,  Dr.  of  Danville,  Ky ,..,.... 152 


SHORT  ESSAYS   IN 
BIBLICAL   CRITICISM 


AXXOUXCEMENT. 

In  addition  to  the  editorial  announcement  already 
made  in  the  Christian  Standard,  that  the  undersigned  is 
expected  to  begin,  with  the  incoming  year,  the  editorial 
conduct  of  a  department  of  Biblical  criticism  in  this 
paper,  I  deem  it  proper  to  make  an  announcement  of 
the  reasons  for  opening  such  a  department,  and  of  the 
plan  on  which  it  is  to  be  conducted. 

For  years  past  I  have  observed  with  much  solicitude 
and  pain  the  increasing  tendency,  both  in  Great  Britain 
and  America,  to  adopt  the  methods  of  destructive  criti- 
cism which  originated  in  the  rationalistic  schools  of  Ger- 
many. This  tendency  has  been  conspicuous  in  the  writ- 
ings of  many  scholars  of  high  repute,  and  it  has  spread 
like  leaven  among  the  masses  of  the  reading  and  think- 
ing young  people  of  both  countries.  It  has  infected  the 
minds  of  thousands  of  preachers,  both  old  and  young, 
and  it  threatens  to  bring  about  a  radical  revolution  in 
the  public  estimate  of  the  Bible.  While  this  tendency 
has  alarmed  me,  I  have  been  at  the  same  time  constantly 
chafed  as  I  have  read  the  writings  of  these  critics,  and 
seen  how  much  of  the  shallowest  sophistry,  and  the 
baldest  dogmatism,  which  they  have  published,  is  being 


2  bHOKl     ii^i^AYb    Ii\ 

taken  for  conclusive  proof  and  profound  learnmg.  I 
have  been  alarmed,  let  it  be  understood  once  for  all,  not 
for  the  Bible  itself,  as  though  it  was  in  danger  of  perish- 
ing, but  for  the  souls  that  are  being  led  astray,  and  for 
the  incalculable  loss  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  salvation 
which  results  from  a  weakening  of  the  faith  of  those 
who  preach  the  Word. 

I  have  also  observed  that,  like  the  promoters  of  all 
other  erratic  and  schismatical  schemes,  the  advocates  of 
this  destructive  criticism  have  been  much  more  zealous 
in  pushing  its  claims  than  those  who  reject  it  have  been 
in  combating  them.  Whole  libraries  of  books  and 
pamphlets  have  been  published  on  that  side,  with 
only  here  and  there  a  volume  in  response.  Maga- 
zine articles,  and  articles  in  weekly  newspapers, 
have  openly  or  covertly  spread  these  so-called  advanced 
ideas  among  the  people,  and  even  the  secular  papers 
have  echoed  them,  while  the  little  that  has  been  written 
in  opposition  has  been  in  the  main  either  rudely  or 
timidly  presented. 

Moved  by  these  facts  and  considerations,  I  opened 
correspondence  last  spring  with  several  scholars  of  dif- 
ferent denominations,  on  the  subject  of  starting  a 
monthly  magazine  to  be  devoted  to  the  conservative  side 
of  this  controversy,  calling  attention  to  the  need  of  it, 
and  to  the  fact  that,  while  the  other  side  is  represented 
by  at  least  two  very  ably  edited  monthlies  in  Great 
Britain,  whose  pages  are  almost  exclusively  devoted  to 
it,  there  is  not  a  periodical  of  any  kind  in  either  Europe 
or  America  devoted  to  that  which  those  scholars,  like 
myself,  believe  to  be  the  true  side.  They  all  expressed 
their  hearty  approval  of  the  suggestion,  one  of  the  most 
eminent  of  them  saying  that  it  was  impossible  to  ex- 
aggerate its  importance.     They  all  expressed  the  same 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  3 

anxiety  in  regard  to  the  spread  of  wrong  ideas  on  the 
subject  among  the  young  people  of  their  respective 
churches,  and  were  wilHng  to  make  a  common  fight 
against  a  common  foe.  But  when  it  seemed  as  if  the 
enterprise  was  ahnost  sure  of  being  practically  set  on 
foot,  some  of  them,  men  whose  names  and  co-operation 
seemed  necessary  to  its  success,  declined  to  take  part 
in  it  for  fear  of  a  financial  failure,  which  they  thought 
would  be  discouraging  in  its  effects.  In  consequence  of 
this,  the  enterprise  was  abandoned,  at  least  for  the  pres- 
ent. This  led  to  the  announcement  of  the  proposed 
critical  department  in  the  Standard.  I  volunteered  my 
services  as  editor  of  such  a  department,  because  I  was 
not  willing  longer  to  sit  still  and  witness  the  progress 
of  an  evil  which  I  may  be  able,  in  some  small  degree, 
to  check  by  means  of  the  information  which  I  have  been 
able  to  acquire,  and  which,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  I 
may  yet  acquire  as  the  days  pass  on. 

It  may  appear  strange  to  many  that  such  a  depart- 
ment should  be  opened  in  a  weekly  religious  journal, 
which  goes  freely  into  the  family  circles  of  the  people; 
and  it  is  true  that  the  Christian  Standard  is  the  first 
journal  of  the  kind  to  make  such  a  venture ;  but  the 
questions  to  be  discussed  are  obtruding  themselves  into 
all  circles  of  thinking  people,  and  it  is  wiser  that  thev 
shall  reach  the  people  through  the  friends  of  the  Bible 
than  through  its  foes :  in  a  form  calculated  to  strengthen 
their  faith,  rather  than  in  a  form  to  weaken  or  to  de- 
stroy it. 

To  persons  who  think  that  the  questions  raised  by 
the  higher  criticism  can  be  discussed  only  in  long  and 
labored  essays,  it  may  seem  injudicious  to  attempt  it  ni 
a  weekly  paper ;  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  this  is  true 
of  some  phases  of  the  controversy;  but  then  there  is  a 


4  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

wide  range  of  investigation  involved,  which  requires  for 
its  prosecution,  and  for  its  inteUigible  presentation,  noth- 
ing more  than  good  common  sense,  and  the  learning 
which  is  within  the  reach  of  many  scholars  of  moderate 
attainments  ;  and  it  is  by  the  discussions  which  lie  within 
this  range  of  thought  that  all  the  issues  raised  are  to  be 
ultimately  settled  in  the  public  mind.  We  enter  upon 
our  task,  therefore,  thoroughly  confident  that  we  shall 
be  able  to  do  valuable  service,  if  a  favorable  Providence 
shall  attend  our  labors,  and  that,  even  if  we  shall  be 
compelled  to  leave  some  questions  out  of  sight,  we  shall 
be  able  to  discuss  fully  those  which  are  of  the  most  vital 
importance,  and  that  we  shall  at  least  be  able  to  occa- 
sionally "shoot  folly  as  it  flies." 

Our  plan,  as  far  as  it  is  at  present  laid  out,  contem- 
plates the  use  of  from  two  to  three  columns- of  the  paper 
weekly.  These  will  be  occupied  partly  by  short  para- 
graphic articles,  partly  by  selected  matter,  and  partly  by 
more  elaborate  editorials  and  contributed  articles,  some 
of  which  may  run  through  several  issues  of  the  paper. 
We  hope  to  secure  assistance  in  the  work  from  some 
scholarly  brethren  who  have  paid  attention  to  critical 
discussions,  and  if,  at  any  time,  competent  writers 
opposed  to  our  views  shall  volunteer  something  well 
written  on  the  other  side,  we  shall  welcome  it  and  give 
it  respectful  consideration. 

The  range  of  discussion  in  the  department  is  not  to 
be  limited  to  higher  criticism,  but  it  will  extend  to  ail 
other  questions  of  Biblical  criticism,  whether  textual, 
exegetical  or  historical.  We  shall  be  glad  to  welcome 
contributed  articles  of  merit  on  all  these  topics,  and  also 
queries  on  any  relevant  topics  which  have  puzzled  or 
embarrassed  any  of  our  readers. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  5 

[Jan.  7.   1893-] 
SOME    DEFIXITIOXS. 

Biblical  criticism  includes  within  its  scope  all  in- 
quiries in  regard  to  the  original  text  of  the  books  which 
make  up  the  Bible,  their  authors,  the  dates  of  their  com- 
position, their  historical  reliability  and  their  literary 
characteristics.  It  is  distributed  into  various  branches 
corresponding  to  these  various  inquiries,  as  textual  criti- 
cism, which  is  concerned  with  questions  about  errors 
which  may  have  crept  into  the  original  text  since  the 
autographs  were  composed ;  historical  criticism,  whicii 
is  concerned  with  questions  of  credibility,  authorship 
and  dates;  and  literary  criticism,  which  is  concerned 
about  matters  of  style  and  diction.  Of  these,  textual 
criticism,  which  came  into  existence  as  a  science  in  the 
early  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  its  first  great 
product  being  ^Mill's  "Critical  Greek  Testament,"  pub- 
lished in  1707,  was  the  first  to  obtain  a  distinct  title. 
For  a  time  indeed  it  bore  the  name  "Biblical  Criticism,  ' 
until  other  branches  of  this  science  were  developed, 
when  the  latter  title  assumed  its  present  broader  sig- 
nificance. The  other  branches  of  the  larger  subject 
came  at  length  to  be  known  under  the  title  of  "Higher 
Criticism,"  this  title  having  been  proposed  first  by  Eich- 
horn,  near  the  close  of  the  last  century,  to  distinguish 
it  from  "Textual  Criticism  " 

Though  the  title.  "Higher  Criticism,"  is  new,  the 
work  which  belongs  to  it  is  not.  That  work  began  when 
the  first  attempt  was  made  by  Hebrew  scholars  to  collect 
and  preserve  the  writings  of  inspired  men,  and  to  make 
up  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  was  continued 
by  Christian  scholars  when  the  same  work  was  under- 
taken  for  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and  every 


6  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

inquiry  instituted  since  that  time,  of  the  kinds  which 
make  up  the  introductions  to  our  various  commentaries, 
belongs  to  the  same  branch  of  Bibhcal  science.  Home's 
Introduction,  well  known  to  our  readers,  published  in 
1818,  is  a  conspicuous  example  of  this  kind  of  literature. 
It  is  scarcely  needful  to  add  that  higher  criticism  is 
a  perfectly  legitimate  branch  of  study,  the  disrepute 
into  which  it  has  fallen  of  late  in  many  minds  having 
grown  out  of  the  illegitimate  methods  which  have  been 
adopted  by  many  critics,  and  the  destructive  conclusions 
to  which  they  have  thereby  led  themselves  and  their  fol- 
lowers. Its  pursuit  must  lead  to  the  truth  concerning 
the  Bible  when  conducted  in  accordance  with  right  prin- 
ciples, and  when  these  are  applied  by  sound  judgment 
and  competent  learning. 


[Jan.  14,  1893.] 

THE  DATES   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 
BOOKS. 

We  shall  have  occasion  to  allude  frequently  to  the 
dates  assigned  to  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  by 
rationalistic  critics;  and  for  the  convenience  of  our 
readers  we  give  here  a  brief  statement  of  them.  We 
shall  follow  the  scheme  laid  down  in  Driver's  Intro- 
duction, both  because  the  author  is  universally  acknowl- 
edged as  a  fair  representative  of  the  more  conservative 
class  of  these  critics,  and  because  his  work  is  likely  to 
be  the  accepted  standard  work  on  the  topics  wdiich  it 
treats,  at  least  among  American  critics. 

We  shall  speak  first  of  the  Elexateuch.  This  term 
will  be  recognized  by  our  readers  as  the  technical  desig- 
nation of  the  first  six  books  of  the  Bible.  According 
to  the  scheme  in  question,  the  earliest  of  these  six  books 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  7 

is  Deuteronomy.  It  was  this  book  alone,  and  not  the 
whole  "book  of  the  law,"  which  Hilkiah  the  priest  found 
in  the  temple  in  the  reign  of  Josiah  (2  Kings  22:8j. 
It  was  written  only  a  short  time  previous,  not  earlier 
than  the  reign  of  Manasseh  (p.  82).  This  puts  its 
composition  in  the  first  half  of  the  seventh  century  be- 
fore Christ,  and  a  little  more  than  seven  hundred  years 
after  the  death  of  Closes.  So  then  the  earliest  of  the 
books  usually  ascribed  to  Aloses  did  not  come  into  exist- 
ence until  more  than  seven  centuries  after  his  death. 

The  other  five  books  of  the  Hexateuch  did  not 
appear  as  we  now  have  them  until  after  the  Babylonian 
captivity.  In  the  eighth  century,  B.  C,  there  existed 
"two  narratives  of  the  patriarchal  and  Alosaic  ages,  inde- 
pendent, yet  largely  resembling  each  other,"  written  by 
unknown  authors,  one  of  whom  habitually  used  Jehovah 
as  the  name  of  God,  and  is  therefore  usually  designated 
by  the  letter  J,  while  the  other  preferred  the  title 
Elohim,  and  is  designated  by  the  letter  E.  A  third 
unknown  writer  in  the  eighth  century  composed  a  new 
narrative  of  the  same  events  by  combining  certain  parts 
of  these  two  into  one.  This  composite  narrative  is 
styled  for  brevity's  sake  JE.  During  the  captivity  th^i 
laws  now  found  in  the  Pentateuch,  together  with  the 
genealogical  tables,  were  composed  in  the  interest  of  the 
priesthood,  and  this  document  is  known  by  critics  as  P. 
After  the  return  from  the  Babylonian  captivity,  a  fifth 
writer  combined  P  with  JE,  making  some  additions  of 
his  own.  and  thus  came  into  existence  our  present 
Hexateuch. 

The  most  radical  critics  deny  to  Moses  the  author- 
ship of  any  part  of  these  books  ;  the  less  radical  think 
it  probable  that  he  wrote  the  Decalogue :  w^hile  the  more 
conservative,  among  whom   is   Professor  Driver,  admit 


8  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

the  probability  that  he  wrote  chapters  20  to  23  of  Ex- 
odus, caUed  the  "Book  of  the  Covenant." 


[Jan.  21,  1893.] 
DATES   OF   OLD  TESTAMENT   BOOKS. 

We  began  last  week  a  statement  of  the  dates  assigned 
to  the  various  books  of  the  Old  Testament  by  the  class 
of  critics  who  are  represented  in  Driver's  Introduc- 
tion. We  pass  now  from  the  Hexateuch  to  the  other 
historical  books. 

Judges  was  compiled,  according  to  these  critics,  by 
the  author  of  Deuteronomy,  who,  as  we  have  seen  in 
our  former  article,  wrote  in  the  eighth  century  B.  C, 
close  to  the  time  in  which  the  latter  book  was  brought 
forward  by  Hilkiah  with  the  assertion  that  he  found  it 
in  the  temple  (154,  157).  This  was  about  four  hundred 
years  after  the  time  of  Samson,  the  last  of  the  judges 
mentioned  in  the  book — late  enough,  as  the  theory 
requires,  to  prevent  the  author  from  knowing  much 
about  the  truth  of  what  he  wrote. 

Ruth,  the  contents  of  which  belong  to  the  earlier 
part  of  the  period  covered  by  Judges,  was  written. 
Driver  thinks,  before  the  exile ;  but  he  admits  that  the 
majority  of  critics  are  against  him  in  this,  some  holding 
it  to  have  been  written  in  the  exile,  and  some  still  later 
(426,  427). 

The  two  Books  of  Samuel,  which  cover  the  period 
from  the  birth  of  Samuel  to  the  death  of  David,  1171- 
1017  B.  C,  were  written,  at  least  the  principal  parts, 
about  700  B.  C,  or  some  three  hundred  years  after  the 
death  of  David  (173).  This  was  long  enough  for  the 
stories  about  Samuel,  Saul  and  David,  orally  transmit- 
ted for  more  than  three  centuries,  to  become  confused 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  g 

and  legendary,  as  all  the  critics  whose  theories  we  are 
considering  suppose  them  to  be  as  they  stand  in  these 
books. 

The  two  Books  of  Kings,  to  which  a  fair  degree  of 
credibility  is  ascribed,  were  written  B.  C.  600  about  the 
close  of  the  period  of  history  which  they  cover;  and 
here  the  theory  of  these  critics  coincides  with  the  gen- 
erally received  opinion  of  Biblical  scholars. 

Quite  different  is  the  view  taken  of  the  two  Books 
of  Chronicles.  They  are  the  least  truthful  of  all  the 
historical  books  of  the  Bible:  they  were  written  pur- 
posely to  falsify  the  history  from  David  down,  in  the 
interest  of  the  priesthood  and  of  the  ritual  law  which 
came  into  existence  during  the  captivity.  They  are 
<lated  alx>ut  300  B.  C,  more  than  two  hundred  years 
after  the  close  of  the  captivity  (512).  Of  course  the 
ancient  supposition  that  they  were  written  by  Ezra  is 
flouted  as  thoroughly  unscientific. 

The  Books  of  Ezra  and  Xehemiah  are  both  removed 
far  below  the  ages  of  these  two  men,  and  are  supposed 
to  have  been  compiled  by  the  author  of  Chronicles,  but 
with  the  use,  possibly,  of  some  memoranda  left  by  the 
two  men  whose  names  the  books  bear. 

Esther,  the  only  historical  book  remaining  to  be 
mentioned,  is  treated  with  more  credit  as  regards  its 
date,  though  not  much  more  so  than  Chronicles  as 
regards  its  truthfulness.  It  is  supposed  to  have  been 
written  about  the  time  of  Xerxes,  in  whose  reign  its 
events  transpired,  and  who  is  known  in  the  book  as 
Ahasuerus   (455). 

From  these  statements,  combined  with  those  in  our 
former  article,  the  reader  can  see  that  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  Books  of  Kings  and  Esther,  all  of  the  his- 
torical books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  brought  by  these 


lo  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

critics    so    far    away    from    their    accredited    dates    and 
authors,  as  to  render  them  historically  unreliable. 


[Jan.  21,  1893.] 
DEBORAH    SLANDERED. 

Professor  Bruce,  in  his  Apologetics,  pronounces  the 
following  harsh  sentence  on  Deborah    (p.  305)  : 

Deborah  was  a  heroic  woman,  and  a  true  inspired  prophet- 
ess, but  she  could  write  these  words,  "To  every  man  a  damsel 
or  two"  (Judg.  5:30),  without  feeling  that  she  was  saying  any- 
thing indelicate  or  immoral.  It  was  not  immorality  as  it  would 
be  to  us,  but  it  was  very  crude,  barbarous  morality. 

This  is  a  slander  on  Deborah ;  for,  instead  of  utter- 
ing as  her  own  the  sentiment  quoted,  she  imagines  this 
to  be  the  sentiment  of  the  heathen  mother  of  Sisera,  and 
puts  the  words  in  her  mouth.  A  critic  writing  a  defense 
of  the  Bible  ought  to  be  careful  not  to  smut  the  repu- 
tation of  so  eminent  a  Biblical  character. 


[Jan.  21.  1893.] 
JAEL'S    FEAT. 

Robertson  Smith,  in  his  "Old  Testament  in  the  Jew- 
ish Church,"  attempts  to  eliminate  Jael's  tent  pin,  with 
which  she  killed  Sisera.     He  says  (p.  132)  : 

In  the  prose  narrative,  Jael  kills  Sisera  in  his  sleep  by  ham- 
mering a  wooden  tent  peg  into  his  forehead — an  extraordinary 
proceeding,  for  the  peg  must  have  been  held  with  one  hand  and 
hammered  with  the  other,  which  is  not  a  likely  way  to  drive  a 
blunt  tent  peg  through  and  through  a  man's  skull  without  awak- 
ening him. 

We  see  from  this  how  higher  criticism  gives  its  pro- 
fessors insight  which  other  persons  do  not  possess ;  for 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  ii 

Professor  Smith  has  cHscovered  that  the  "tent  peg"  wa«; 
a  "wooden"  one.  that  it  was  "blunt,"  and  that  Jael  haJ 
to  hammer  it  by  hard  knocks  into  the  "forehead''  of 
Sisera,  and  not  into  his  temple,  as  the  text  has  it.  He 
thinks,  too,  that  Sisera  ought  to  have  waked  up  before 
she  got  it  hammered  "through  and  through  his  skuil 
We  think  so,  too,  if  he  intended  to  wake  up  at  all.  The 
Professor  next  proceeds  to  tell  us  that  the  writer  ot 
this  prose  narrative  got  his  information  from  the  song 
of  Deborah,  and  that  he  fell  into  a  blunder  by  misunder- 
standing the  song.  He  makes  the  song  sav  that  Jael 
gave  Sisera  some  "sour  milk  in  an  ample  bowl,"  and 
that  "while  Sisera,  still  standing,  buried  his  face  in  the 
bowl,  and  for  a  moment  could  not  watch  her  actions/' 
she  put  her  hand  to  the  "peg,"  which  here  means  the 
handle  of  her  hammer,  and  crushed  his  skull  with  the 
hammer !  I  suppose  we  must  understand  that  Sisera 
drank  as  a  cow  does,  by  putting  his  mouth  down  into  the 
sour  milk,  and  that  as  the  bowl  was  a  very  deep  one,  his 
eyes  also  went  down  into  it  too  deep  for  him  to  see  what 
Jael  was  about.  Well,  it  is  a  great  thing  to  be  a  critic; 
it  enables  a  man  not  only  to  reconstruct  the  books  of  the 
Bible  to  suit  his  taste,  but  also  to  remodel  its  facts  and 
show  that  its  writers  misunderstood  one  another. 


[Jan.  28.  1893.] 

THE  DATES  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT  BOOKS. 

In  regard  to  the  dates  of  the  prophetical  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  the  differences  between  the  mass  of 
Biblical  scholars  and  the  rationalistic  critics  are  not  so 
serious  as  to  demand  especial  attention,  except  as  to  the 
last  twenty-seven  chapters  of  Isaiah,  and  the  Books  of 
Jonah  and  Daniel.     By  these  critics  these  chapters  of 


12  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Isaiah,  and  a  few  of  the  earher  chapters,  are  assigned 
to  the  period  of  the  Babylonian  captivity,  and  said  to 
have  been  written  by  an  unknown  prophet  far  superior 
in  style  and  in  genius  to  Isaiah.  After  his  death  his 
writings  were  attached  to  those  of  Isaiah,  because,  when 
the  prophetic  books  were  collected  in  their  present  form, 
his  name  had  been  lost  (Driver's  Introduction,  231). 

Jonah. — Of  this  book  Driver  says:  "A  date  in  the 
fifth  century  B.  C.  will  probably  not  be  far  wide  of  the 
truth"  (301).  This  is  about  three  centuries  after  the 
date  assigned  in  the  Scriptures  to  the  career  of  Jonah, 
who  is  said  to  have  lived  in  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II 

Daniel. — Of  this  book  the  same  writer  says:  "In- 
ternal evidence  shows,  with  a  cogency  that  can  not  be 
resisted,  that  it  must  have  been  written  not  earlier  than. 
about  300  B.  C,  and  in  Palestine ;  and  it  is  at  least  prob- 
able that  it  was  composed  under  the  persecution  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  B.  C.  168  or  167."  This  puts  the 
date  from  three  hundred  to  four  hundred  years  after 
the  time  of  Daniel,  and  after  the  occurrence  of  the 
events  of  which  the  earlier  chapters  claim  to  be  predic- 
tions. It  robs  this  part  of  the  book  of  all  prophetical 
character. 

Job. — Driver  does  not  credit  this  book  as  containing 
"literal  history."  This  inappropriate  use  of  the  term 
literal,  we  take  to  be  a  mild  form  of  declaring  that  it 
contains  no  history  at  all.  He  admits  "the  antique, 
patriarchal  coloring"  of  the  first  two  chapters  and  the 
last,  but  he  ascribes  this  to  "the  skill  of  the  author."  Of 
its  date  he  says:  "It  is  impossible  to  fix  the  date  of  the 
book  precisely:  but  it  will  scarcely  be  earlier  than  the 
age  of  Jeremiah,  and  belongs  most  probably  to  the 
period  of  the  Babylonian  captivity"   (405). 

The  Psalms. — Our  author  asserts  that  a  majority 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  13 

of  the  seventy-three  Psalms  ascribed  to  David  by  the 
inscriptions  above  them,  can  not  be  his  (352)  ;  he  quotes 
Ewald's  opinion  that  thirteen  of  them,  and  a  few  scraps 
of  others,  are  David's  (357)  ;  and  he  finally  decides 
thus:  "It  is  possible  that  Ewald's  list  of  Davidic  Psalms 
is  too  large,  but  it  is  not  clear  that  none  of  the  Psalms 
contained  in  it  are  of  David's  composition"  (358).  All 
the  other  Psalms  are  of  course  from  the  pens  of  writers 
later  than  those  to  whom  they  are  ascribed  in  the  in- 
scriptions. 

Proverbs. — The  contents  of  this  book  came  from  the 
pens  of  many  different  authors,  and  the  many  different 
compilations  of  which  it  is  made  up  bear  date  from  the 
eighth  century  B.  C.  down  to  the  period  after  the  exile. 
The  earliest  part  was  compiled,  in  other  words,  about 
two  centuries  after  the  death  of  Solomon,  and  whether 
he  wrote  any  of  the  proverbs  which  the  book  contains 
is  left  in  doubt  (381-83). 

Solomon's  Soxg. — It  is  "out  of  the  question,"  says 
our  author,  to  think  of  Solomon  as  the  author  of  this 
composition.  It  was  written  either  after  the  exile,  about 
five  hundred  years  after  the  time  of  Solomon,  or  just 
before  the  exile;  and  if  at  the  latter  date,  its  author 
lived  in  the  northern  kingdom,  not  even  in  the  kingdom 
over  which  Solomon's  successors  reigned. 

EccLESiASTES. — Our  author  speaks  hesitatingly  about 
the  date  of  this  book.  He  quotes  Ewald  as  assigning  it 
to  the  later  years  of  the  Persian  rule,  which  ended  B.  C. 
332,  and  closes  his  discussion  on  it  with  the  remark  that 
"a  date  somewhat  later  than  Ewald's  appears  to  be  more 
probable"  (446,  447). 

This  brings  our  statements  of  the  dates  of  the  Old 
Testament  books,  according  to  the  "conservative  critics," 
to  a  close.     We  have  made  it  brief,  and  have  left  out 


14  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

collateral  matter,  in  order  that  it  may  serve  as  a  kind  of 
reference  table  for  those  readers  who  have  not  taken 
the  pains  to  go  through  the  subject  for  themselves,  or 
whose  memory  needs  occasional  refreshing  on  the  sub- 
ject. The  effect  which  the  acceptance  of  these  dates 
must  have  on  our  faith  in  the  credibility  of  most  of 
these  books,  and  in  the  honesty  of  their  writers  or  com- 
pilers, must  be  apparent  in  its  main  features,  and  it  will 
appear  in  a  more  glaring  light  as  we  enter  into  details, 
which  we  hope  to  do  at  least  in  part  as  we  proceed  with 
the  work  of  this  department. 


[Jan.  28.  1893.] 
BRIGGS'    CHOICE. 

Professor  Briggs,  in  his  defense  before  the  presby- 
tery, makes  this  remark :  "Yes ;  and  I  would  deliber- 
ately choose  the  company  for  time  and  eternity  of  Mar- 
tineau  and  Newman,  rather  than  of  such  loveless  per- 
sons as  would  cast  them  out  of  the  congregation  of  the 
faithful."  This  means  that  he  would  choose  the  com- 
pany of  those  two  men  rather  than  that  of  his  Presby- 
terian brethren ;  for  certainly  any  Presbyterian  church 
would  cast  out  of  the  congregation  Martineau,  who 
denies  the  divinity,  the  resurrection  and  the  miracles  of 
Jesus,  and  Newman,  who  was  an  apostate  from  Prot- 
estantism to  Roman  Catholicism.  Doubtless  the  Pres- 
byterians will  gratify  the  Professor  in  this  choice  so  far 
as  they  can,  before  they  get  through  with  him.  I  say, 
so  far  as  they  can ;  for,  although  they  can  let  him  go  to 
the  Unitarian  Church  where  Martineau  is,  he  can  never 
get  where  Newman  is,  unless  Newman  died  under  a 
great  delusion  ;  for  it  is  a  fixed  doctrine  of  Newman's 
church  that  no  Unitarian  or  Presbyterian  can  ever  go 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  15 

where  Newman  has  gone.  According  to  this,  there  is  a 
poor  chance  for  Briggs  to  get  into  company  with  Mar- 
tineau  and  Newman  both.  Perhaps,  though,  he  can 
overtake  Newman  before  the  latter  gets  through  purga- 
tory. 


[Jan.  28.  1893.1 

INSPIRATION    OF    INVERACITY. 

Dr.  Liddon,  the  great  London  preacher,  whose  death 
occurred  not  many  months  ago,  in  commenting  on  the 
manner  in  which  some  of  the  critics  treat  the  subject  of 
inspiration,  said:  "Unless  there  be  such  a  thing  as  the 
inspiration  of  inveracity,  we  are  shut  up  to  the  choice 
between  acceptance  of  the  authority  of  some  of  our 
modern  critics,  and  any  belief  whatever  in  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  books  wdiich  they  handle  after  this  fashion." 

But  an  inspiration  of  errancy  and  inveracity  is  the 
very  kind  which  those  who  afTect  to  be  leaders  of  criti- 
cism are  now  urging  upon  our  acceptance. 


[Feb.  II.  1893.] 

WHAT   OF   IT? 

In  three  brief  articles  during  the  month  of  January 
I  set  forth  the  dates  assigned  to  the  several  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  in  Driver's  Introduction.  Perhaps  some 
one  is  ready  to  ask.  What  of  it  all?  What  difference 
does  it  make  whether  these  books  were  written  at  the 
times  usually  supposed,  or  at  the  times  alleged  by  the 
critics?  It  is  often  said  by  the  critics  themselves  that 
the  value  of  a  book  does  not  depend  upon  who  its  human 
author  was,  but  upon  the  truth  which  it  teaches,  and 
the  edification  which  it  supplies.     This  saying  is  to  a 


i6  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

certain  extent  true,  and  yet  to  another  certain  extent  it 
may  be  false  and  pernicious.  Flalf  truths  are  often  used 
with  precisely  the  effect  of  whole  falsehoods;  and 
against  this  kind  of  sophistry  we  are  to  be  constantly 
on  our  guard  in  dealing  with  rationalistic  writings. 

If  we  take  the  Pentateuch  as  an  example,  it  would 
certainly  make  no  difference  as  to  its  intrinsic  value, 
whether  it  was  written  by  Moses,  or  by  some  other 
writer  equally  competent.  But  suppose  we  say  with 
these  critics,  that  it  was  written  by  men  who  lived  from 
seven  to  nine  hundred  years  after  the  time  of  Moses, 
and  who  were  therefore  from  seven  to  nine  centuries 
farther  removed  from  the  time  of  the  events;  would  that 
make  no  difference?  Well,  even  that  would  make  no 
difference,  if  these  writers  were  inspired  with  a  miracu- 
lous knowledge  of  the  events  concerning  which  they 
write  ;  but  this  is  denied  by  the  critics,  and  it  is  stoutly 
affirmed  that  they  knew  only  that  which  had  come  down 
to  them  in  oral  and  written  traditions.  Furthermore,  it 
is  boldly  affirmed  that  these  writers  wrote  many  things 
which  are  not  historically  true.  It  becomes,  then,  a  very 
serious  question,  how  we  shall  regard  the  Old  Testa- 
ment books,  if  we  accept  the  dates  assigned  to  them  by 
these  gentlemen.  I  propose  to  discuss  the  question  m 
this  article  with  respect  to  one  of  the  least  important  of 
all  the  books  for  either  instruction  or  edification  under 
the  Christian  dispensation.  At  least,  it  is  generally  so 
regarded,  though  it  would  be  easy  to  shov/  that  it  is  of 
far  more  present  value  than  most  men  suppose.  I  mean 
the  Book  of  Leviticus. 

This  book  sets  out  in  its  first  sentence  with  the  claim 
that  the  laws  which  it  contains  were  given  by  God  to 
Moses  at  the  tent  of  meeting:  ''And  Jehovah  callel 
unto   Moses,   and   spake    unto   him   out   of   the   tent   of 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM 


17 


meeting,  saying.  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  anvl 
say  unto  them."  It  closes  with  these  words :  "These  are 
the  commandments,  which  Jehovah  commanded  Moses 
fcr  the  children  of  Israel  on  mount  Sinai."  Thus,  in  its 
first  and  in  its  last  sentence,  it  asserts  that  its  contents 
came  from  God  through  Moses  to  the  children  of  Israel. 
In  the  body  of  the  book,  the  special  subjects  of  legis- 
lation are  uniformly  introduced  with  the  formula,  "And 
Jehovah  spake  to  Closes,  saying."  This  formula  is 
repeated  thirty-four  times,  if  I  have  not  miscounted,  and 
in  three  places  a  similar  statement  is  made  at  the  close 
of  a  subject  of  legislation.  At  the  close  of  the  laws  of 
sacrifice,  it  is  said:  "This  is  the  law  of  the  burnt  ofifer- 
ing,  of  the  meal  oft"ering,  and  of  the  sin  offering,  and 
of  the  guilt  offering,  and  of  the  consecration,  and  of  the 
sacrifice  of  peace  offerings,  which  Jehovah  commanded 
Moses  in  mount  Sinai  in  the  day  that  he  made  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  to  offer  their  oblations  to  Jehovah,  in  the 
wilderness  of  Sinai"  {/'S/,  38).  At  the  close  of  the 
law  concerning  the  annual  festivals,  it  is  said :  "And 
Closes  declared  unto  the  children  of  Israel  the  set  feasts 
of  Jehovah"  (23:44).  Finally,  at  the  close  of  all  the 
sections  of  the  book  but  one,  it  is  said :  "These  are  the 
statutes  and  judgments  and  laws,  which  Jehovah  made 
between  him  and  the  children  of  Israel  in  mount  Sinai 
by  the   hand  of   Moses"    (26:46).      In   addition   to   all 

these  statements,  there  are  numerous  reiterations  amon.j- 

»-> 

the  statutes  for  the  j^urpose  of  enforcing  the  careful 
observance  of  them,  of  the  w^arning  words,  "I  am  Jeho- 
vah your  God,"  often  with  the  additional  words,  ''who 
brought  you  up  out  of  Egypt." 

Now,  if  our  critics  are  correct,  every  one  of  these 
statements,  soften  and  mollify  the  assertion  as  you  may, 
is  a   falsehood ;  and  the   writer  or  writers   who,   in   th:? 


i8  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

midst  of  the  Babylonian  captivity,  wrote  this  book,  set 
these  statements  down  knowing  them  to  be  false.  This 
is  admitted  by  the  critics.  They  say  that  it  was  not  con- 
sidered, in  that  age,  immoral  to  attach  a  great  name  to 
a  book  or  an  ordinance  in  order  to  give  it  weight  with 
the  people,  which  otherwise  it  would  not  have.  In  other 
words,  the  religious  writers  of  that  day,  the  men  who 
wrote  the  Bible,  did  not  think  it  was  wrong  to  lie  in 
order  to  gain  for  their  writings  credit  and  veneration 
to  which  they  were  not  entitled.  This  is  not  surprising 
when  we  hear  it  from  Graf,  Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  and 
other  avowed  rationalists ;  but  what  shall  we  think  of 
that  class  of  critics  who,  after  espousing  this  theory, 
still  reiterate  that  the  writers  of  Leviticus  were  ''in- 
spired men"?  Do  they  mean,  inspired  with  a  lying 
spirit  sent  out  from  the  Lord,  as  in  the  case  of  Ahab's 
false  prophets  ?  No.  Inspired,  they  say,  by  the  Spirit 
of  God;  that  Spirit  whose  title  is  "The  Spirit  of  Holi- 
ness," "The  Spirit  of  Truth."  Well,  if  the  writers  of 
Leviticus  did  not  know  that  it  was  wrong  to  lie,  the 
Holy  Spirit  did ;  and  it  seems  to  me  a  very  near 
approach  to  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit  of  which 
the  Pharisees  were  guilty,  to  assert  that  these  writers 
were  inspired,  and  then  say  that  much  which  they  wrote 
was  false,  and  known  to  be  false  when  they  wrote  it. 

Another  most  astonishing  thing  about  these  critics 
is  the  earnest  protestation  in  which  their  writings 
abound,  that  these  new  views  of  the  Bible  make  the  old 
book  more  precious  to  them  than  it  was,  or  could  have 
been,  before.  I  will  not  deny  what  they  say  as  to  their 
own  sentiments ;  but  I  can  account  for  them  only 
through  the  same  conceit  of  human  nature  which  makes 
the  mother  of  every  ugly  little  brat  on  the  streets  think 
it  the  handsomest  child  in  town.     The  new  Bible,  which 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  19 

these  gentlemen  love  so  well,  is  their  own  bantling,  and 
it  bears  their  own  image  and  superscription. 

Quite  different  from  the  view  of  Leviticus,  held  by 
these  scholars,  is  that  held  by  our  Saviour.  To  the  first 
leper  whom  he  healed,  he  said:  "Go  thy  way,  show  thy- 
self to  the  priest,  and  offer  for  thy  cleansing  the  things 
which  ]\Ioses  commanded,  for  a  testimony  unto  them" 
(Mark  1:44).  The  directions  referred  to  are  found  in 
the  fourteenth  chapter  of  this  Book  of  Leviticus.  Jesus 
here  ascribes  it  to  ]\loses,  and  he  treats  the  law  cited  as 
one  still  to  be  enforced.  x\nd  if  this  law  of  the  leper 
was  from  Aloses,  so  we  must  suppose  the  whole  book  to 
have  been,  unless  there  are  some  parts  which,  for  special 
reasons,  must  be  otherw^ise  regarded.  Again,  w^hen 
Jesus  was  called  on  by  a  lawyer  representing  a  body  of 
Pharisees,  to  declare  which  was  the  greatest  command- 
ment in  the  law,  he  gave  the  first  in  a  quotation  from 
the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  (6:5);  and  the  second, 
"'Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,"  he  took  from 
the  Book.of  Leviticus  (19:  18).  \\'hom  shall  we  credit 
with  correct  knowledge  on  the  subject,  Jesus  our  Lord 


[Feb.  18.  1893-1 
CHEYXE    OX    DAMD    AND    GOLL\TH. 

The  Expositor  for  October  last  contains  an  article 
by  John  Taylor,  in  review  of  a  recent  work  by  Canon 
Cheyne,  entitled  "Aid  to  the  Devout  Study  of  Criti- 
cism," in  which,  among  other  curious  things,  he  states 
Cheyne's  theory  of  the  story  about  David  and  Goliath. 
He  claims  that  Goliath  was  killed  by  Elhanan,  the  Beth- 
lehemite  (2  Sam.  21:19),  ^^^^  that  the  author  of  I 
Samuel  has  credited  David  with  another  man's  achieve- 


20  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

ment.  We  are  a  little  curious  to  know  how  Professor 
Cheyne  found  out  that  the  statement  about  killing  Goli- 
ath in  2  Samuel  is  true,  while  that  in  i  Samuel  is  false? 
And  how  did  he  discover  that  the  Goliath  who  was  killed 
by  Elhanan  is  the  same  one  whom  David  is  said  to  have 
killed?  If  2  Samuel  can  be  believed,  and  Cheyne  seems 
to  think  it  can  be  in  regard  to  Goliath,  Elhanan's  feat 
was  performed  late  in  David's  reign,  at  a  time  when  his 
soldiers  had  said  that  he  should  not  lead  them  out  to 
battle  any  more,  lest  the  "lamp  of  Israel  be  quenched;"' 
and  this  Goliath  was  one  of  four  brothers  born  to  the 
"giant  in  Gath"  (21  :  17-22)  ;  but  David's  feat  was  per- 
formed when  he  was  a  stripling,  still  alternately  his 
father's  shepherd  and  Saul's  musician  (i  Sam.  17:  15). 
There  was  a  space  of  not  less  than  forty  years  between 
the  two  incidents.  How  is  it  that  Cheyne  knows  more 
about  these  men  than  did  the  author  of  the  book? 
"But,"  says  Mr.  Taylor,  "the  form  in  which  that  tradi- 
tion has  been  preserved,  bears  the  impress  of  the  Divine 
Spirit,  who  has  converted  what  would  otherwise  have 
been  mere  folk  tales  into  vehicles  of  religious  instruction 
for  all  ages."  That  is,  the  false  credit  given  to  David 
for  killing  a  giant  who  was  really  killed  by  another  man 
forty  years  later,  with  all  the  false  details  of  the  combat 
given  in  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  i  Samuel,  "bears 
the  impress  of  the  Divine  Spirit."  This  is  not  exactly 
identifying  the  Divine  Spirit  with  Beelzebub,  but  it 
comes  dangerously  near  it.  Mr.  Taylor  closed  his  review 
with  the  question,  "Can  criticism  be  devout?"  Well 
might  he  ask  the  question.  Strange  to  say,  he  thinks  it 
can  be,  and  that  Cheyne's  book  is  proof  of  it. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  21 

[Feb.  18.  1893.] 
THE  RED  SEA  AFFAIR. 

Our  friend  Uacon,  who  in  his  attempt  to  get  rid  of 
the  jaw-bone  with  which  Samson  slew  a  thousand  Phil- 
istines, made  him  use  the  hill  of  Lehigh  as  his  weapon, 
tries  his  hand  on  many  of  the  miracles  of  the  Old.  Testa- 
ment. Here  is  his  attempt  on  the  miracle  at  the  Rdl 
Sea: 

The  strong  wind  drives  back  the  shallow  water  till  Israel 
is  able  to  ford  the  narrow  gulf.  On  the  farther  shore  the  battle 
takes  place  between  them  and  their  pursuers,  who  are  em- 
barrassed by  the  returning  tide  and  finally  turn  to  "flee  against 
it,"  leaving  their  dead  upon  the  seashore. — Genesis  of  Genesis, 
i8n. 

We  are  astonished  that  after  the  lapse  of  more  tha;! 
three  thousand  years  this  gentleman,  living  near  Boston, 
should  know  so  much  more  about  this  remarkable  event 
than  the  man  who  wrote  Exodus.  He  knows  that  in- 
stead of  going  through  the  sea  on  "dry  ground,"  as  that 
author  says,  the  Israelites  forded  the  gulf ;  and  he  has 
learned  that  at  that  place  it  was  a  "narrow  gulf."  He 
has  learned,  what  that  author  did  not  know,  that  a 
battle  was  fought  between  Israel  and  the  Egyptians,  and 
that  it  was  fought  after  both  armies  had  safely  forded 
the  sea.  Fie  agrees  with  Exodus,  that  the  Egyptians 
were  "embarrassed"  (slightly  so,  we  suppose)  by  the 
returning  tide,  and  finally  turned  to  "flee  against  it ;" 
but  he  claims  that  the  only  dead  they  left  were  those 
killed  in  a  battle  on  the  farther  shore — the  rest,  notwith- 
standing the  slight  "embarrassment"  caused  by  the 
returning  tide,  got  back  in  safety  to  their  own  side  of 
the  narrow  gulf.  This  is  about  the  way  in  which  infidels 
rewrote  sacred  history  in  the  days  of  Voltaire.  It  is  the 
way  in  which  reverend  critics,  with  D.  D.  at  the  end  of 
their  names,  rewrite  it  now. 


22  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

[Feb.  25,  1893.] 
CRITICISM  AND  THE  BOOK  OF    GENESIS. 

As  a  rule,  new  theories  on  any  subject  should  be 
carefully  examined  on  their  merits  before  we  pronounce 
judgment  on  them  ;  but  when  a  theory  is  either  absurd 
in  itself,  or  is  found  to  involve  absurdities,  we  may  rightly 
save  ourselves  this  trouble.  For  example,  when  the 
idealist  tells  us  that  we  have  no  corporate  bodies,  that 
there  are  no  material  substances  in  existence,  but  that 
all  apparent  material  objects  are  but  ideas  formed  within 
our  own  brains  (which  brains  are  but  ideas),  we  may 
very  properly  save  ourselves  the  time  necessary  to  hear 
the  reasoning  by  which  he  would  prove  his  absurd  prop- 
osition. So  with  the  analytical  theory  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. If  we  find  that  this  theory,  as  propounded  by 
its  recent  advocates,  involves  absurdities,  we  may  very 
safely  set  it  aside,  and  save  ourselves  the  years  of  study 
necessary  to  trace  out  the  interminable  complications  in 
which  it  is  involved.  We  examined  it  February  1 1  from 
this  point  of  view,  with  reference  to  its  bearings  on  the 
Book  of  Leviticus;  and  now  we  propose  to  try  it  with 
reference  to  the  Book  of  Genesis. 

The  theory,  as  we  have  set  it  forth  in  former  articles 
on  the  basis  of  Driver's  Introduction,  is  objectionable, 
not  because  it  represents  the  author  of  Genesis  as  using 
pre-existing  documents  in  the  composition  of  the  book, 
and  thus  regarding  the  book  as  in  part  a  compilation ; 
for  this  theory,  if  it  would  still  allow  Moses  to  be  the 
inspired  author,  would  not  detract  from  the  value  of  the 
book,  or  bring  reproach  upon  those  who  look  upon  it 
as  a  truthful  record.  Indeed,  Dr.  Astruc,  the  French 
physician  who,  a  century  and  a  half  ago,  first  pro- 
pounded the  theory  that  two  documents,  written  respec- 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  23 

lively  by  an  Elohistic  and  a  Jehovistic  writer,  lay  at  the 
basis  of  Genesis,  was  a  firm  believer  in  its  Mosaic 
authorship  :  and  this  view  in  a  modified  form  has  been 
revived  recently,  and  argued  with  wonderful  skill  by 
Principal  Cave,  one  of  the  foremost  scholars  in  Great 
Britain,  and  a  vigorous  opponent  of  the  theory  advo- 
cated by  Driver  and  others.  Even  if  it  should  be  made 
to  appear  that  Moses  is  not  the  author,  but  that  it  was 
written,  no  matter  when,  by  a  man  or  men  so  inspired 
with  a  knowledge  of  the  events  that  we  can  rely  upon 
the  truthfulness  of  the  representations,  the  book  would 
lose  none  of  its  intrinsic  value.  But  the  writers  to 
whom  the  Grafian  theory  ascribes  the  book,  men  who 
lived  from  the  eighth  to  the  fifth  century  before  Christ, 
are  not  credited  with  any  such  inspiration.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  held  that  the  two  older  writers,  J  and  E,  con- 
tradicted each  other  in  many  things,  and  that  the  editor 
who  combined  their  narratives  into  one  was  not  always 
careful  to  remove  these  contradictions.  The  priestly 
writer  of  the  captivity,  who  wrote  a  large  portion,  wrote 
for  the  purpose  of  giving  the  ancient  history  of  the 
chosen  people  a  priestly  cast  which  was  essentially  false ; 
and  all,  down  to  the  latest  Redactor,  wrote  without  any 
certain  information  in  regard  to  the  facts. 

On  this  subject  Driver  expresses  himself  cautiously, 
but  in  a  way  not  to  be  misunderstood.  Of  the  two 
earlier  writers,  he  says:  "J  and  E,  then  (assuming  them 
to  be  rightly  distinguished),  appear  to  have  cast  into  a 
literary  form  the  traditions  respecting  the  beginnings  of 
the  nation,  which  were  current  among  the  people  ap- 
proximately (as  it  would  seem)  in  the  early  centuries 
of  the  monarchy"  (no).  That  is,  they  did  not  write 
real  history  from  reliable  information,  but  only  the 
"traditions  of  the  beginnings  of  the  nation  which  were 


^24  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

current  among  the  people,"  and  current  especially  from 
the  time  of  David  to  their  own  day.  Of  the  writer  P 
he  makes  three  remarks  short  enough  for  me  to  quote, 
and  sufficiently  explicit:  "His  aim  seems  to  have  been 
to  present  an  ideal  picture  of  the  Mosaic  age,  con- 
structed indeed  upon  a  genuine  traditional  basis,  but  so 
conceived  as  to  exemplify  the  principles  by  which  an 
ideal  theocracy  should  be  regulated."  He  might  have 
cited  as  an  illustration  Sir  Thomas  More's  "Utopia." 
Again:  "It  is  difficult  to  escape  the  conclusion  that  the 
representation  of  P  includes  elements,  not,  in  the  ordi- 
nary sense  of  the  term,  historical."  He  evidently  means 
that  they  are  mythical  or  legendary.  And  again ;  "It  is 
probable  that,  being  a  priest  himself,  he  recorded  tradi- 
tions, at  least  to  a  certain  extent,  in  the  form  in  which 
they  were  current  in  priestly  circles"  (pp.  120,  121, 
note  2). 

But  while  Driver  is  thus  cautious  in  words,  verifying 
the  taunt  which  Cheyne  hurls  at  him  in  a  review  of  his 
work  in  the  Expositor  of  last  year,  to  the  effect  that  he 
was  timidly  holding  back,  yet  steadily  coming  on  toward 
the  more  radical  critics,  others  of  his  school  are  more 
outspoken.  For  example.  Professor  Ryle,  of  Cambridge, 
universally  recognized  as  a  conservative  and  a  ''devout" 
critic,  had  a  series  of  articles  in  the  Expository  Times 
of  last  year,  in  which  he  frankly  avowed  the  belief  that 
the  first  eleven  chapters  of  Genesis  are  purely  mythical ; 
and  Professor  Schultz,  in  his  "Old  Testament  The- 
ology," recently  published  by  T.  &  T.  Clark,  is  quoted 
by  a  reviewer  in  the  Thinker^  as  saying,  ''We  must  hold 
that  the  people  of  Israel,  like  all  other  peoples,  preserved 
the  memory  of  its  earliest  days  in  a  mythical,  and  not 
in  a  historical,  form,  unless  we  are  to  think  of  that 
people   as   crippled  in  one  of  the  noblest  attributes  of 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM 


25 


nationality."  All  who  have  load  Professor  Briggs'  de- 
fense in  his  recent  trial  before  the  New  York  Presbytery 
will  remember  remarks  which  show  that  his  view  of  the 
book  is  substantially  the  same.  Indeed,  it  is  impossible 
to  accept  the  theory  of  these  scholars,  in  reference  to 
the  origin  of  the  book,  without  seeing  that  it  leads 
inevitably  to  these  conclusions. 

What  now  shall  we  say  as  to  the  value  of  the  Book 
of  Genesis  if  this  theory  is  true?  It  seems  strange, 
indeed,  that  any  man  of  sense,  with  such  a  view,  can 
say  as  these  gentlemen  do,  that  it  is,  in  some  sense  which 
they  do  not  define,  an  inspired  book,  and  that  it  is  more 
precious  to  their  souls  now  than  before  they  discovered 
these  facts  concerning  its  origin  and  character.  Sooner 
or  later  every  one  of  these  gentlemen  will  find  himself 
compelled  to  follow  his  real  teachers  further,  and  to 
agree  with  Graf,  Wellhausen,  and  their  school,  in  reject- 
ing absolutely  the  thought  that  God  has  had  any  part  in 
the  composition  of  the  book. 

The  view  taken  of  the  contents  of  this  book  by  Jesus 
and  his  inspired  apostles,  and  the  view  which  common 
sense  would  require  us  to  take  of  the  latter,  should  we 
accept  the  theory  which  we  have  been  considering,  must 
be  the  subject  of  another  article. 


[March   11.  1893.] 

GENESIS  ACCORDIXG  TO  JESUS. 

In  a  former  article  we  showed  by  extracts  from 
Driver  and  others  how  the  Book  of  Genesis  is  regarded 
by  the  destructive  critics.  The  four  or  five  authors  who 
contributed  to  its  composition,  lived  at  too  late  a  period 
to  know  any  of  the  facts,  and^they  had  no  such  inspira- 
tion as  could  enable  them  to  distinguish  between  fact  and 


26  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

fable  in  the  remote  past ;  consequently,  the  stories  which 
they  put  into  the  book  are  legends  or  myths,  some  resting" 
on  possible  facts  which  can  not  now  be  separated  from 
the  rubbish  which  has  overlaid  them.  No  part  of  the 
book,  therefore,  can  be  accepted  as  free  from  exaggera- 
tion or  distortion.  We  are  now  to  compare  this  view  of 
the  contents  of  the  book  with  that  which  was  taken  by 
our  Lord.  We  shall  find  that  in  all  his  allusions  to  the 
book  he  treats  its  narratives  as  unquestioned  matters  of 
fact,  and,  what  is  more  worthy  of  notice,  the  portions 
to  which  he  makes  allusions,  include  those  which  are 
held  by  the  critics  to  be  the  most  incredible  of  all.  We 
make  a  few  specifications. 

I.  The  account  of  the  formation  of  the  first  woman  is 
one  of  these  incredible  narratives,  and  under  the  name 
of  the  "rib  story"  it  has  been  the  butt  of  ridicule  to  the 
irreverent  critics,  as  it  has  been  a  stumbling-block  to 
those  who  are  styled  reverent.  But  Jesus  indirectly 
endorses  the  whole  story  in  his  discussion  with  the 
Pharisees  about  divorce.  He  says :  "Have  you  not  read, 
that  he  who  made  them  from  the  beginning  made  them 
male  and  female,  and  said,  For  this  cause  shall  a  man 
leave  his  father  and  mother,  and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife; 
and  the  twain  shall  become  one  flesh?"  (Matt.  19:4). 
Here  he  appeals  to  what  the  Pharisees  had  read ;  and 
they  had  read  it  where  we  read  it,  in  the  second  chapter 
of  Genesis,  the  paragraph  which  describes  the  formation 
of  the  woman.  His  appeal  to  the  passage  to  settle  a 
question  as  to  the  will  of  God,  shows  that  he  regarded 
it  not  as  containing  a  myth,  but  as  a  faithful  record  of 
an  actual  event.  Furthermore,  he  quotes,  as  presenting 
the  main  point  of  his  argument,  the  last  sentence  of  that 
record,  which  makes  it  ^loubly  certain  that  he  indorsed 
the  record  itself.     But  he  goes  even  beyond  the  mere 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  27 

endorsement  of  the  record — he  affirms,  by  a  necessary 
imphcation.  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  man  who  wrote 
it.  The  verse  which  he  quotes  was  written  by  the  author 
of  the  book,  and  not  spoken  by  Adam,  as  appears  from 
the  consideration  that  Adam  as  yet  knew  nothing  about 
father  and  mother,  and  forsaking  them  to  cleave  to 
one's  wife;  but  Jesus  quotes  it  as  the  language  of  God, 
saying:  "He  who  made  them  from  the  beginning  made 
them  male  and  female,  and  said.  For  this  cause,"  etc. 
Now,  the  only  ground  on  which  it  could  be  affirmed  that 
God  said  this  is,  that  the  author  was  inspired  of  God  to 
write  it.  Here,  then,  is  not  only  an  endorsement  of  the 
fact  related,  but  an  indirect  affirmation  of  the  divine 
inspiration  of  the  writer.  God  said  what  this  writer 
wrote. 

2.  The  earliest  account  of  the  deluge,  according  to 
the  "critics,"  is  that  recently  deciphered  from  Assyrian 
inscriptions ;  and  the  account  in  Genesis  was  formed 
from  that  by  eliminating  its  polytheism,  and  conforming 
it  to  the  monotheism  which,  after  the  Babylonian  cap- 
tivity, had  become  the  theology  of  the  Jews.  The  latter 
learned  the  story  while  they  were  in  captivity.  It  is  a 
legend  based  upon  some  local  disaster  of  early  time^. 
How  did  our  Lord  speak  of  it?  In  announcing  his 
second  coming  to  judgment  he  said:  ''And  as  were  the 
days  of  Noah,  so  shall  be  the  days  of  the  coming  of  the 
Son  of  man.  For  as  in  those  days  \vhich  were  before 
the  flood,  they  were  eating  and  drinking,  marrying  and 
giving  in  marriage,  until  the  day  that  Noah  entered 
into  the  ark,  and  they  knew  not  until  the  flood  came 
and  took  them  all  away;  so  shall  be  the  coming  of  the 
Son  of  man"  (Matt.  22:39).  ^^ow,  if  a  modern  critic 
had  been  present  in  the  person  of  a  Pharisee,  how  easily 
he  could  have  broken  the  whole  force  of  this  warning 


28  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

by  answering:  ''Just  so,  Master,  that  story  about  Noah 
is  aU  a  humbug,  and  you  know  it ;  and  so  we  must  under- 
stand that  your  talk  about  coming  again  is  cut  from  the 
same  cloth."  The  Pharisees,  however,  did  not  know 
this,  for  it  is  a  modern  discovery ;  what,  then,  was 
Jesus  doing  but  playing  on  their  ignorance  by  giving 
them  a  warning  that  had  nothing  in  it?  This  is  the 
conclusion  to  which  criticism,  ''scientific'  criticism, 
would  force  us. 

3.  The  story  of  the  fate  of  Sodom  is  not  credited  by 
any  of  the  "critics,"  and  that  of  Lot's  wife,  given  in 
connection  with  it,  is  regarded  as  not  less  preposterous 
than  the  "rib  story,"  or  the  story  of  Jonah  in  the  fish. 
But  Jesus  more  than  once  held  up  the  fate  of  Sodom^ 
as  a  warning  to  his  generation,  which  he  could  not  have 
done  honestly  if  there  was  no  truth  in  it;  and  he  espe- 
cially emphasizes  the  lesson  to  be  drawn  from  the  fate 
of  Lot's  wife.  In  a  speech  recorded  in  Luke  17-,  after 
speaking  of  the  flood,  he  says :  "Likewise,  even  as  it 
came  to  pass  in  the  days  of  Lot,  they  ate,  they  drank, 
they  bought,  they  sold,  they  planted,  they  budded,  -but 
in  the  day  that  Lot  went  out  from  Sodom  it  rained  fire 
and  brimstone  from  heaven,  and  destroyed  them  all ; 
after  the  same  manner  shall  it  be  in  the  day  that  the 
Son  of  man  is  revealed.  In  that  day,  he  who  shall 
be  on  the  housetop,  and  his  goods  in  the  house,  let 
him  not  go  down  to  take  them  away ;  and  let  him 
that  is  in  the  field  not  return  back.  Remember  Lot's 
wife."  If  this  story  was  a  legend,  and  if  Jesus  knew 
it  to  be  such,  it  is  impossible  to  reconcile  his  use  of 
it  here  with  the  truthfulness  and  absolute  sincerity 
which  belong  to  his  nature.  It  would  be  impossible  for 
him  to  thus  use  a  fabulous  tale  which  had  been  manu- 
factured by  some  unknown  writer  of  the  middle  Jewish 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM 


29 


age;  for  the  whole  force  of  the  warning-  depended  upon 
the  reality  of  the  event  on  which  the  warning  is  based. 
4.  One  more  specification  must  suffice  at  present.  We 
have  a  saying  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  Abraham  which, 
while  a  more  indirect  indorsement  of  Genesis  than  the 
preceding,  is  none  the  less  emphatic.  He  said  to  the 
Jews:  "Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day; 
and  he  saw  it  and  was  glad"  (John  7:  56).  This  remark 
implies  the  truth  of  what  is  said  in  Genesis  about  the 
promises  to  Abraham  concerning  the  seed  through  whom 
the  w^orld  was  to  be  blessed.  There  is  nothing  else  in 
the  recorded  career  of  Abraham  to  which  it  can  refer. 
It  goes  even  beyond  the  record  in  Genesis  on  this  sub- 
ject ;  for  the  latter  only  affirms  the  fact  that  Uie  promise 
was  made,  while  Jesus  sets  forth  the  feeling  of  Abra- 
ham when  he  heard  it,  affirming  that  he  looked  forward 
to  the  day  of  its  fulfillment,  and  saw  it,  and  was  glad. 
This  is  the  indorsement  not  only  of  a  fact,  but  of  a  face 
of  prophetic  foresight,  or,  rather,  of  the  explicit  revela- 
tion by  Jehovah  of  a  fact  then  nearly  two  thousand 
years  in  the  future.  How  could  Jesus  have  thus  spoken, 
if  he  regarded  the  stories  in  Genesis  as  mere  "folk-lore," 
the  idle  tales  of  a  people  concerning  their  prehistoric 
times,  like  those  of  the  Romans  concerning  Romulus 
and  Remus?  There  is  only  one  answer  to  this  question 
consistent  with  common  sense,  and  it  is  inconsistent  with 
faith  in  Christ — it  is  the  answer  of  the  masters  in  criti- 
cism, that  Jesus  was  as  ignorant  on  the  subject  of  the 
truthfulness  of  Old  Testament  stories,  as  were  the 
Pharisees  of  his  own  age,  and  as  are  the  "Traditional- 
ists" of  our  age.  Well,  by  this  answer,  the  so-calleJ 
traditionalists  are  placed  in  good  company.  "To  whom 
shall  we  go?  Thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal  life." 
We  are  content  to  stand  with  Christ  against  the  critics. 


30  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

and,  with  Paul,  to  let  God  be  true  and  every  man  a 
liar. 


[May  20,  1893.] 
JOSHUA  AND  THE  LAW  OF  MOSES. 

It  was  a  cunning  device  of  the  destructive  critics  to 
connect  the  Book  of  Joshua  with  the  Pentateuch  in  their 
critical  theory,  thus  making  up  the  Hexateuch;  for  it 
enabled  them,  by  bringing  down  the  date  of  this  book 
as  low  as  that  of  the  others,  to  evade  the  evidence  which 
Joshua  affords  for  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  law.  But 
when  one  fact  after  another  is  set  aside  to  make  room 
for  a  theory,  the  effect  is  not  only  to  throw  suspicion  on 
the  theory,  but  to  confirm  the  facts  which  the  theory 
wishes  to  get  rid  of. 

The  Book  of  Joshua  is  an  anonymous  book,  and  the 
date  of  its  composition  as  a  whole  can  not  be  very  defi- 
nitely fixed.  The  last  paragraph  of  it  was  certainly  not 
written  by  Joshua  himself ;  for  it  contains  the  account 
of  his  death  and  burial ;  nor  can  it  have  been  written  by 
one  of  his  contemporaries,  for  it  contains  the  statement 
that  "Israel  served  Jehovah  all  the  days  of  Joshua,  and 
all  the  days  of  the  elders  that  outlived  Joshua."  But 
this  is  not  proof  that  Joshua,  or  some  contemporary,  did 
not  write  the  main  body  of  the  book;  for  it  was  most 
natural.  If  he  did,  for  an  editor  at  some  later  date  to 
add  this  last  paragraph  as  a  supplement  to  the  story  of 
his  career.  One  thing  at  least  is  certain,  If  we  may  rely 
at  all  on  the  historical  statements  of  the  book,  and  that 
is,  that  it  contains  narratives  which  were  written  by  one 
or  more  contemporaries  of  Joshua,  if  not  by  Joshua  him- 
self. The  first  of  these  Is  the  account  of  crossing  the 
Jordan.     The  writer  of  this  narrative  uses  at  one  place 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  31 

the  pronoun  "\vc"  for  the  company  that  parsed  over ; 
and  he  uses  it  in  that  quiet,  incidental  way  which  dis- 
arms the  suspicion  that  he  used  it  frauchilently.  He 
says:  "When  aU  the  kings  of  the  Amorites  which  were 
beyond  Jordan  westward,  and  all  the  kings  of  the 
Canaanites  which  were  by  the  sea,  heard  how  that  the 
Lord  had  dried  up  the  waters  of  the  Jordan  from  before 
the  children  of  Israel,  until  we  were  passed  over,  their 
heart  melted"  {5:1).  It  is  true  that  another  reading  of 
this  text  has  the  pronoun  in  the  third  person,  but  the 
text,  as  we  have  it,  is  supported  by  the  preponderance 
of  the  textual  evidence,  and  it  must  stand  unless  new 
evidence  against  it  shall  be  found.  Again,  in  the  nar- 
rative respecting  Rahab,  it  is  said:  "But  Rahab  the 
harlot,  and  her  father's  household,  and  all  that  she  had, 
did  Joshua  save  alive;  and  she  dwelt  in  the  midst  of 
Israel  unto  this  day"  (7:25).  This  shows  that  Rahab 
was  still  alive  when  this  portion  of  the  book  was  written  ; 
and  unless  we  have  evidence  that  the  date  of  this  part 
is  different  from  that  of  the  main  body  of  the  book,  we 
must  so  conclude  in  regard  to  the  latter. 

We  now  turn  from  the  question  of  the  date  of  the 
book  to  that  for  which  we  started  out,  the  evidence  which 
it  furnishes  for  the  early  origin  of  the  law  of  Moses. 
In  Its  opening  paragraph  it  represents  God  as  saying  co 
Joshua :  "Only  be  strong  and  very  courageous  to  observe 
to  do  according  to  all  the  law  which  Moses  my  servant 
commanded  thee :  turn  not  from  it  to  the  right  hand  or 
to  the  left,  that  thou  mayest  have  good  success  whither- 
soever thou  goest.  This  book  of  the  law  shall  not  depart 
out  of  thy  mouth,  but  thou  shalt  meditate  therein  day 
and  night,  that  thou  mayest  observe  to  do  according  to 
all  that  is  written  therein  :  for  so  shalt  thou  make  thy 
way  prosperous,  and  then  shalt  thou  have  good  success*' 


2,2  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

(1:7,  8).  Now,  if  this  communication  was  made  to 
Joshua,  it  demonstrates  the  existence  at  that  time,  which 
was  just  thirteen  days  after  the  death  of  Moses,  of  a 
book  of  the  law,  written  by  Moses,  which  was  to  be  the 
guide  of  Joshua's  hfe;  and  he  who  denies  that  such  a 
book  did  then  exist,  charges  the  author  of  the  Book  of 
Joshua  with  falsely  putting  these  words  into  the  mouth 
of  God. 

Again,  the  reading  at  Mount  Ebal,  recorded  in  the 
eighth  chapter,  proves  not  only  the  existence  of  the  law 
in  the  days  of  Joshua,  but  the  existence  of  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy,  which  the  critics  say  was  written  in  the 
time  of  King  Josiah.  It  is  there  stated  that  Joshua 
''wrote  upon  the  stones  a  copy  of  the  law  of  Moses, 
which  he  wrote  in  the  presence  of  the  children  of 
Israel ;"  and  that  "afterward  he  read  all  the  words  of 
the  law,  the  blessing  and  the  curse,  according  to  all  that 
is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law.  There  was  not  a  word 
of  all  that  Moses  commanded  which  Joshua  read  not 
before  all  the  assembly  of  Israel"  (8:30-35).  The 
reference  here,  as  the  last  quotation  clearly  shows,  is  to 
that  which  Moses  had  commanded  Israel  to  write  and 
read  on  this  occasion ;  for  it  is  limited  by  the  expression, 
''the  blessing  and  the  curse."  What  was  written,  there- 
fore, and  what  was  read,  was  the  passage  in  Deuter- 
onomy in  which  the  blessings  and  the  curses  are  laid 
down,  and  the  directions  given  for  this  writing  and 
reading  (Deut.  32:  1-26).  This  shows  that  Deuteronomy 
was  then  in  the  hand  of  Joshua,  and  as  the  critics  agree 
that  this  book  was  written  after  the  Jehovistic  and  the 
Elohistic  portions  of  the  Pentateuch,  they  should  con- 
cede that  the  latter  were  written  in  the  days  of  Moses. 
But  here  they  resort  to  their  easy  way  of  setting  aside 
evidence  by  saying  that  this  narrative  is  not  historicaL 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  33 

The  next  evidence  is  fonnd  in  the  transaction  respect- 
ing the  altar  erected  by  the  two  and  a  half  tribes  near 
the  Jordan.  This  was  reg'arded  as  so  gross  a  departure 
from  the  law  that  all  the  tribes  assembled  for  war  upon 
the  transgressors,  and  sent  Phinehas  with  ten  princes  to 
inquire  into  the  matter.  The  nature  of  the  supposed 
offense  is  expressed  by  Phinehas  in  these  words,  "Rebel 
not  against  Jehovah,  nor  rebel  against  us,  in  building 
you  up  an  altar  beside  the  altar  of  Jehovah  our  God;" 
and  the  iniquity  of  such  a  procedure  is  acknowledged 
by  the  accused  in  their  reply,  "God  forbid  that  we  should 
rebel  against  Jehovah,  and  turn  away  this  day  from 
following  Jehovah,  to  build  an  altar  for  burnt  offering, 
or  for  sacrifice,  besides  the  altar  of  Jehovah  our  God 
that  is  before  the  tabernacle"  (22:19-29).  In  these 
words  of  the  two  parties  to  the  discussion,  it  is  made 
clear  that  the  grievous  sin  which  the  accused  were  sup- 
posed to  have  committed,  and  for  \vhich  they  were  to  be 
punished  with  death  if  guilty,  was  that  of  erecting,  for 
the  purposes  of  sacrifices,  an  altar  other  than  that  which 
stood  before  the  door  of  the  tabernacle.  But  it  is  only 
in  Deuteronomy  that  the  law  is  written  which  makes  this 
a  sin ;  and  this  again  shows  conclusively  that  Israel  then 
had  this  book,  and,  as  this  was  the  last  written  of  the 
four  books  of  the  law,  it  proves  that  all  the  books  were 
then  in  existence  and  in  use.  The  only  escape  from  this 
conclusion  is,  as  usual,  the  denial  of  the  truth  of  this 
narrative,  and  thus,  step  by  step,  as  we  have  proved 
again  and  again  in  these  columns,  destructive  criticism 
would  destroy  all  confidence  in  the  truthfulness  of  thv 
Biblical  books. 

We  might  add  to  these  evidences  the  fact  that  Joshua 
twice  observed  a  law  of  Deuteronomy  by  taking  down 
before  night  dead  bodies  which  had  been  hanged  on  a 


34  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

tree  (8:29;  10:27;  cf.  Dent.  21:22);  and  that  he 
observed  another  found  in  Numbers,  by  the  distribution 
of  the  Levites  in  forty-eight  cities,  including  six  cities 
of  refuge  (Josh.  20,  21  ;  cf.  Num.  35)  ;  but  there  is  no 
need  of  multiplying  evidences  when  a  few  are  given 
that  are  obviously  conclusive.  Enough  is  now  before  us 
to  show  that  we  must  throw  away  the  Book  of  Joshua 
as  a  book  of  legends  and  myths,  if  we  deny  the  Mosaic 
origin  of  the  Pentateuch.  If  any  man  is  prepared  for 
this,  let  him  go  on  his  way,  and  let  us  remain  where 
we  are. 


[May  27,  1893.1 

A  SPECIMEN. 

I  commend  to  the  consideration  of  Professor  Nor- 
dell  and  his  class  of  critics  a  specimen  of  criticism  on 
an  English  classic,  which  he  has  probably  never  seen, 
and  which  may  be  of  service  to  him  in  his  future  efforts 
at  literary  criticism.  As  the  document  has  not  yet  been 
copyrighted,  I  will  not  disclose  the  name  of  the  book 
from  which  it  is  an  extract.  It  is  entitled  "The  Literary 
Analysis  of  an  Ancient  Poem."  As  the  poem  is  a  brief 
one,  we  shall  quote  it  in  full : 

"Old    Mother    Hubbard    went   to    the   cupboard, 

To  get  her  poor  dog  a  bone. 
When  she  got  there,  the  cupboard  was  bare, 

And  so  the  poor  dog  had  none." 

In  the  uncritical  ages  of  the  past  this  poem  was 
believed  to  be  the  composition  of  a  single  person — a  very 
ancient  English  woman  by  the  name  of  Goose.  Whether 
we  should  style  her  Mrs.  Goose,  or  Miss  Goose,  we  have 
no  means  of  deciding  with  certainty,  for  the  stories 
which  have  come  down  to  historical  times  concerning  her 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  35 

are  mostly  legendary.  It  miglit  be  supposed  that  the 
title  "mother"  would  settle  this  difficult  question ;  but, 
as  in  certain  convents  of  our  own  day,  venerable  spin- 
sters are  styled  Mother,  so  may  it  have  been  in  the  days 
of  Goose.  lUit,  leaving  this  interesting  question  as  one 
for  further  historical  inquiry,  we  turn  to  the  poem  itself, 
and  by  applying  to  it  the  scientific  process  of  literary 
analysis,  we  find  that  the  document  did  not  originate,  as 
our  fathers  have  supposed,  from  a  single  author,  but 
that  it  is  a  composite  structure,  at  least  two  original 
documents  having  been  combined  within  it  by  a  Re- 
dactor. This  appears  from  the  incongruities  between  the 
two  traditions  which  evidently  underlie  the  poem.  One 
of  these  traditions  represents  the  heroine  of  the  poem,  a 
venerable  ^Irs.  Hubbard,  as  a  benevolent  woman,  who 
loved  her  dog,  as  appears  from  the  fact  that  she  went 
to  the  cupboard  to  get  him  some  food.  If  we  had  the 
whole  of  this  story,  we  should  doubtless  fin:l  that  she 
did  this  every  time  the  dog  was  hungry,  and  as  she 
would  surely  not  go  to  the  cupboard  for  the  dog's  food 
unless  she  knew  there  was  some  in  the  cupboard,  we  can 
easily  fill  out  the  story  of  her  benevolence  bv  assuming 
that  she  put  something  away  for  the  dog  when  she  ate 
her  own  meals.  Xow,  in  direct  conflict  with  this,  the 
other  tradition  had  it  that  she  kept  the  dog  "poor ;"  for 
he  is  called  her  "poor  dog :"  and,  in  keeping  with  this 
fact,  instead  of  giving  him  meat,  she  gave  him  nothing 
but  bones.  Indeed,  so  extreme  was  her  stinginess  toward 
the  poor  dog  that,  according  to  this  tradition,  she 
actually  put  away  the  bones  in  the  cupboard  with  which 
to  mock  the  poor  dog's  hunger.  A  woman  could  scarcelv 
be  represented  more  inconsistently  than  Mrs  Hubbard 
was  by  these  two  traditions  ;  and  consequently  none  but 
those  who  are  fettered  by  tradition,  can  fail  to  see  that 


36  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

the  two  must  have  originated  from  two  different  authors. 
For  the  sake  of  distinction,  we  shall  style  one  of  these 
authors,  GoOse  A,  and  the  other,  Goose  B.  In  these 
two  forms,  then,  the  traditions  concerning  this  ancient 
owner  of  a  dog  came  down  from  prehistoric  times.  At 
length  there  arose  a  literary  age  in  England,  and  then 
R  put  together  in  one  the  accounts  written  by  the 
two  gooses,  but  failed  to  conceal  their  incongruities,  so 
that  unto  this  day  Alother  Hubbard  is  placed  in  the 
ridiculous  light  of  going  to  the  cupboard  when  there  was 
nothing  in  it;  of  going  there,  notwithstanding  her  kind- 
ness to  her  dog,  to  tantalize  him  by  getting  him  a  mere 
hone;  and,  to  cap  the  climax,  of  going  all  the  way  to 
the  cupboard  to  get  the  bone  when  she  knew  very  well 
that  not  a  bone  was  there. 

Some  people  are  unscientific  enough  to  think,  that  in 
thus  analyzing  the  poem,  we  are  seeking  to  destroy  its 
value,  but  every  one  who  has  the  critical  faculty  devel- 
oped, can  see  that  this  ancient  household  lyric  is  nuich 
more  precious  to  our  souls  since  we  have  come  to  under- 
stand its  structure ;  and  that,  contradictory  as  its  two 
source  documents  were,  it  is  a  blessed  thing  that,  in  the 
providence  of  God,  both  have  been  preserved  in  such 
a  form  that  critical  analysis  is  capable  of  separating  and 
restorinof  them. 


[May  27,  1893.] 

THE  QUESTION  OF  INERRANCY. 

I  believe  it  was  Professor  Briggs  who  first  introduced 
the  current  use  of  the  term  "inerrancy"  in  the  controversy 
about  the  character  of  the  original  Scriptures.  If  he  did 
not,  he  at  least  has  given  it  its  chief  conspicuity  in  recent 
discussions.     It  is  well  known  that  no   intelligent  man 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  37 

claims  inerrancy  for  the  printed  Bibles  which  we  now 
use,  whether  in  the  translations  or  the  original  tongues. 
The  question  has  never  had  reference  to  any  other  than 
the  language  of  the  inspired  writers,  as  distinguished 
from  the  alterations  and  interpolations  which  have  been 
introduced  by  copyists  and  editors.  In  other  words,  it 
has  reference  to  the  autographic  waiting  of  the  authors 
of  the  books.  Instead  of  meeting  the  question  fairly, 
those  gentlemen  who  are  so  fond  of  an  errant  Bible, 
have  taken  a  great  deal  of  pains  to  obscure  the  real  issue 
by  throwing  dust  into  the  air.  Professor  Warfield,  of 
Princeton,  has  an  excellent  article  in  the  Independent  of 
March  23,  in  which  he  scatters  this  dust,  and  lays  bare 
the  real  issue  in  a  most  intelligible  manner.  We  quote 
him : 

We  have  heard  a  vast  deal  of  late  of  "the  hrst  manuscripts 
of  the  Bible  which  no  living  man  has  ever  seen,"  of  "Scriptures 
that  have  disappeared  forever,"  of  "original  autographs  which 
have  vanished;"  concerning  the  contents  of  which  these  contro- 
versialists are  willing  to  declare,  with  the  emphasis  of  italics, 
that  they  know  nothing,  that  no  man  knows  anything,  and  that 
they  are  perfectly  contented  with  their  ignorance.  Xow,  again, 
if  this  were  to  be  taken  literally,  it  would  amount  to  a  strong 
asseveration  that  the  Bible,  as  God  gave  it  to  men,  is  lost  beyond 
recovery ;  and  that  men  are  shut  up,  therefore,  to  the  use  of 
Bibles  so  hopelessly  corrupted  that  it  is  impossible  now  to  say 
what  was  in  the  original  autographs  and  what  was  not !  In  pro- 
portion as  we  draw  back  from  this  contention — which  is  for- 
tunately as  absurd  as  it  is  extreme — in  that  proportion  do  we 
affirm  that  we  have  the  autographic  text :  that  not  only  we,  but 
all  mefi,  may  see  it  if  they  will:  and  that  God  has  not  permitted 
the  Bible  to  become  so  hopelessly  corrupt  that  its  restoration  to 
its  original  text  is  impossible.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  great 
body  of  the  Bible  is,  in  its  autographic  text,  in  the  worst  copies 
of  the  original  texts  in  circulation  :  practically  the  whole  of  it  is 
in  its  autographic  text  in  the  best  texts  in  circulation ;  and  he 
who  will  may  to-day  read  the  autographic  text  in  large  stretches 


38  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

of  Scripture  without  legitimate  doubt,  and,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment at  least,  may  know  precisely  at  what  rarely  occurring 
points,  and  to  what  not  very  great  extent,  doubts  as  to  the 
genuineness  of  the  text  are  still  possible. 

The  Professor  miglit  have  added  that  this  autograph, 
thus  accurately  preserved,  and  now  in  the  hands  of 
every  reader  of  the  corrected  Greek  text  of  the  New 
Testament,  is  faithfully  represented  to  the  eye  of  every 
English  reader  in  the  renderings  and  marginal  readings 
of  the  Revised  Version.  For  while,  as  the  textual  critics 
make  plain  to  us,  seven-eighths  of  the  words  of  the  New 
Testament  are  now  printed  in  the  very  form  in  which 
they  came  from  the  original  penmen,  and  nine  hundred 
and  ninety-nine  thousandths  of  it  absolutely  so  in  mean- 
ing ;  and  while  we  can  put  our  finger  on  every  word 
about  which  there  remains  any  doubt ;  the  marginal  read- 
ings of  the  revised  New  Testament  enable  the  reader 
who  knows  not  a  word  of  Greek  to  put  his  finger  also 
on  these  words,  and  to  know  that  all  the  rest  are  pre- 
cisely those  of  the  autographs.  It  is  a  most  mischievous 
and  deceptive  device,  therefore,  originating  from  the 
heat  of  controversy,  to  speak  of  the  autographic  writing 
of  the  apostles  as  though  it  were  lost  to  the  world,  never 
to  be  known  again  except  by  conjecture.  Thank  God, 
we  have  it  in  a  purer  form  than  our  fathers  had,  even 
back  to  the  early  ages  of  the  faith  ;  and  with  this  auto- 
graphic writing  in  our  hands,  we  stand  before  those  who 
would  criticize  its  representations,  and  say :  Gentlemen, 
show  us  an  error  here  which  by  a  fair  logical  process 
can  be  certainly  charged  to  the  inspired  penmen,  and  we 
will  concede  that  to  this  extent  their  inspiration  failed 
to  guard  against  error.  You  have  not  done  so  yet ;  for 
all  the  specifications  which  you  have  made  fail  of  this 
essential    condition.      We   would    caution    them    also    to 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  39 

remember  that  there  is  the  breadth  of  the  heavens  be- 
tween infinitesimal  errors  of  detail  in  a  very  few  in- 
stances, and  such  errors  as  they  are  constantly  charg-ing- 
upon  the  Scriptures,  errors  in  which  multitudes  of  facts, 
arguments  and  inferences  in  every  part  of  the  Bible  are 
discredited  at  the  good  pleasure  of  every  opinionated 
critic.  The  former  would  be  a  puzzle  worthy  of  pro- 
found consideration  and  an  earnest  effort  at  solution ; 
but  the  latter  makes  the  Bible  less  reliable  as  a  record 
of  facts  than  Macaulay's  History  of  England  or  PJan- 
croft's  History  of  the  United  States.  We  want  no  such 
Bible  as  that,  and  the  coming  generation  will  have  none 
at  all  if  that  is  the  alternative. 


[June  4.  1893.] 

ARCHDEACON   FARRAR   AXD   HIGHER    CRITI- 
CISE!. 

This  voluminous  and  very  popular  writer  has  recentlv 
published  an  essay  in  the  Rcz'iczc  of  the  Churches,  in 
Avhich  he  defines  his  position  on  the  results  of  recent 
criticism  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  defends  it  with  his 
customary  vehemence.  It  is  by  no  means  a  surprise  to 
those  who  have  kept  pace  with  him  in  his  numerous 
productions  to  learn  that  he  stands  with  the  advanced 
column  of  the  higher  critics  :  for  alth:)ugh  he  has  bee.i 
comparatively  silent  on  the  subject,  and  has  never  before 
publicly  avowed  his  conclusions,  it  has  been  increasingly 
clear  that  his  views  of  inspiration  were  leading  him  in 
that  direction.  In  his  earlier  days  as  a  writer,  he  pub- 
lished an  ecsay  on  "Inspiration,"  in  which,  when  speak- 
ing of  the  charge  that  the  Biblical  writers  have  fallen 
into  mistakes,  he  says:  "That  they  did  so  err.  I  am  not 
so  irreverent  as  to  assert,  nor  has  the  widest  learning 


40  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

and  the  acutest  ingenuity  of  skepticism  ever  pointed  out 
one  complete  and  demonstrable  error  of  fact  or  doctrine 
in  the  Old  or  New  Testament."  Since  then  it  seems 
that  he  has  become  "so  irreverent"  as  to  charge  that 
they  have  committed  multitudes  of  errors;  and  he  has 
either  concluded  that  the  old  skeptics  were  more  acute 
than  he  then  thought  they  were,  or  he  has  found  the 
newer  skeptics  more  acute  than  the  old  set.  He  defines, 
in  the  terms  following,  his  conception  of  the  way  in 
which  revealed  truth,  if  it  is  right  to  so  style  it,  came 
to  the  sacred  writers : 

The  revelation  came  to  men  through  the  circumstances  and 
conditions  of  their  lives,  which  were  the  voice  of  God  to  their 
own  reason  and  conscience,  speaking  to  them  in  the  course  of 
national  events,  and  the  divine  education  of  personal  experience, 
not  in  breaths  of  articulated  air. 

These  statements  contain  an  explicit  denial  of  miracu- 
lous inspiration,  and  they  bring  the  sources  of  informa- 
tion of  the  sacred  writers  down  to  the  level  of  those 
which  all  other  writers  enjoy.  What  is  it,  then,  but 
sheer  nonsense,  to  speak  of  them  as  inspired  writers? 
It  is  worse  than  nonsense,  it  is  deceit ;  for  by  the  con- 
tinued use  of  this  term  these  men  keep  up  the  appearance 
of  believing  what  is  represented  by  it,  of  distinguishing 
the  Bible  writers  from  others,  when  in  reality  they  deny 
what  they  seem  to  affirm.  The  latter  clause  of  this 
extract  is  intended  to  cast  a  slur  on  the  current  concep- 
tion of  inspiration.  ''Not  in  breaths  of  articulated  air.'* 
Who  has  affirmed  what  is  here  formally  denied?  And 
if  no  one  has  so  affirmed,  why  the  unfairness  of  insinu- 
ating, for  the  purpose  of  ridicule,  that  they  have?  It  is 
a  rare  virtue  to  correctly  represent  an  opponent's  posi- 
tion— a  virtue  which  few,  if  any,  of  the  destructive 
critics  have  learned  to  appreciate. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM 


41 


It  seems  from  a  personal  reminiscence  mentioned  In 
the  essay  that,  although  I^'arrar's  avowal  of  belief  in  the 
conclusions  of  advanced  critics  has  been  so  delayed,  the 
leaven  of  it  has  been  working  in  him  for  a  long  time: 
for  he  tells  us  that  when  Colenso  was  being  prosecuted 
for  his  infidel  work  on  the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua,  about 
thirty  years  ago,  he  and  Dean  Stanley  stood  by  him.  He 
seems  to  congratulate  himself  on  having  helped  to  defeat 
the  effort  then  made  to  remove  from  the  Church  of  Enp-- 
land  the  reproach  of  having  a  bishop  who  dared  to  write 
such  books  as  Colenso  published.  If  that  church  had 
been  pure  enough  at  that  time  to  purge  herself  of  such 
a  bishop,  it  is  highly  probable  that  it  would  not  now 
have  within  its  folds  so  many  canons,  professors,  arch- 
deacons and  bishops  who  publish  sentiments  equally 
destructive  of  the  faith  of  the  people,  and  equally  dis- 
creditable to  the  church  which  tolerates  them. 

While  Archdeacon  Farrar  is  certainly  one  of  the 
most  eloquent  of  living  writers  and  a  scholar  c  f  exhaus- 
tive research  on  the  subjects  which  engage  his  pen,  he  is 
by  no  means  noted  for  logical  power,  and  he  sometimes 
indulges  in  speculations  wdiich  can  scarcely  spring  from 
a  sober  judgment.  The  readers  of  his  "Early  Days  ot 
Christianity"  will  recall,  as  specimens  both  of  wild  specu- 
lation and  inconclusive  reasoning,  his  positions  on  the 
genuineness  of  2  Peter  and  the  authorship  of  Hebrews. 
His  labored  attempt  to  prove  that  Apollos  was  the  most 
probable  author  of  the  latter  Epistle,  it  will  be  remem- 
bered, was  based  chiefly  on  the  style  of  the  Epistle:  yet 
there  is  not  a  line  in  existence  from  the  pen  of  Apollos 
to  give  one  the  remotest  idea  as  to  what  his  style  was. 
As  to  2  Peter,  he  labors  at  great  length  to  prove  that  it 
was  not  written  by  the  apostle,  and  yet  he  comes  to  the 
conclusion  at  last  that  it  may  have  been  w^ritten  by  some 


42  SHORT   ESSAYS  IN 

one  under  the  immediate  direction  of  the  apostle.  Such 
specimens  of  criticism,  based  on  style,  ought  to  have 
taught  him  and  others  some  caution  in  applying  the 
same  method  to  the  Hebrew  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment— to  a  language  with  which  they  are  less  familiar 
than  with  the  Greek. 

So  far  as  I  can  gather  from  the  notices  of  this  essay 
which  I  have  seen,  for  I  have  not  yet  obtained  access  to 
the  essay  itself,  there  is  no  attempt  in  it  to  make  advances 
on  the  established  method  of  argumentation,  nor  to 
throw  any  new  light  on  the  subject.  The  author  in- 
dulges in  bold  statements  in  much  disparagement  of  the 
views  which  he  opposes,  and  in  some  predictions  after 
the  manner  of  our  own  countryman.  Professor  Briggs. 
He  allows  only  twenty  years  till  "no  one  whose  intellect 
has  not  been  absolutely  fossilized  will  be  found  to  ques- 
tion" these  conclusions.  How  many  years  was  it  that 
Voltaire  allowed  himself  to  obliterate  the  memory  of 
Jesus  of  Nazareth?  Predictions  are  cheap;  that  is,  the 
kind  which  modern  prophets  announce  while  they  are 
vainly  striving  to  make  it  appear  that  the  ancient  proph- 
ets had  no  inspiration  different  from  their  own. 

One  of  the  most  surprising  things  in  this  essay  is  the 
Archdeacon's  statement  of  the  first  advantage  which  is 
gained  by  the  conclusions  of  the  critics  whom  he  follows. 
It  is  this :  ''We  gain  at  once  the  enormous  advantai^e 
that  ninety-nine  hundredths  of  the  assaults  and  objec- 
tions of  infidels  and  secularists  are  at  once  rendered 
innocuous."  How  this  can  be  when  ninety-nine  hun- 
dredths of  the  objections  of  infidels  are  admitted,  and 
their  validity  insisted  upon  by  the  critics,  T  can  not 
understand.  I  think  that  a  man  must  certainly  have  to 
become  an  archdeacon  in  order  to  understand  how  an 
objection   can   become    innocuous   by   its    validity   being" 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  43 

admitted.  On  the  other  hand,  he  claims  that  by  these 
theories  "we  lose  only  a  useless  fetish  of  human  theory; 
a  false,  lifeless  and  impossible  dogma,  which  in  these 
days  could  only  crush  to  atoms  an  intelligent  faith,  if  it 
were  regarded  as  an  essential  of  religion."  lie  refers 
to  the  theory  of  the  infallibility  of  the  autograph  Scrip- 
tures ;  but  here  he  presents  another  puzzle  ;  for  how  is 
it  possible  that  this  theory  can  now  "crush  to  atoms  an 
intelligent  faith"  ?  I  have  been  of  the  opinion  that  an 
intelligent  faith  is  one  that  can  not  be  crushed  to  atoms 
at  all.  Such  a  faith,  accompanied  with  belief  in  the 
inspiration  and  truthfulness  of  the  Scriptures,  has  with- 
stood all  the  crushers  of  eighteen  centuries,  and  it  is  not 
very  likely  to  be  crushed  to  atoms  at  this  late  date.  Does 
the  venerable  archdeacon  mean  that  his  own  faith  was 
about  to  be  crushed  to  atoms  when  belief  in  the  new 
criticism  came  to  his  relief,  and  saved  him  from  infidel- 
ity? It  looks  very  much  that  way.  Perhaps  he  found 
his  first  relief  from  a  weakening  faith  when  he  fell  into 
the  advocacy  of  a  second  probation,  and  wrote  his  book 
entitled  "Eternal  Hope." 


[July  I.  1893.] 

PAUL'S  FOUR  HUNDRED  AXD  THIRTY  YEARS. 

Some  weeks  ago  I  received  a  request  from  a  highly- 
respected  brother  to  explain  the  apparent  discrepancy- 
involved  in  Paul's  statement  (Gal.  3:17)  of  the  time 
between  the  covenant  and  the  law.  I  replied  that  it  was 
my  intention  to  speak  of  it  in  connection  with  Professor 
Briggs'  defense  before  the  Xew  York  Presbytery,  and 
that  I  would  do  so  as  soon  as  some  matters  in  regard 
to  the  Old  Testament  which  I  had  on  hand  were  dis- 
posed of.     I  now  fulfill  that  promise. 


44  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

In  his  attempt  to  justify  his  denial  of  the  inerrancy 
of  the  Scriptures,  Professor  Briggs  brought  forward 
this  alleged  example  of  error  with  great  confidence.  He 
stated  the  case  in  the  following  terms : 

The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  contains  a  serious  chronological 
error,  according  to  the  opinion  of  most  scholars.  "Now  this  I 
say :  A  covenant  confirmed  beforehand  by  God,  the  law,  which 
came  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  doth  not  disannul,  so 
as  to  make  the  promise  of  none  effect"   (Gal.  3:  17). 

This  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  from  the  promise  to 
Abraham  until  the  law-giving,  is  in  accordance  with  the  four 
hundred  years  of  the  prediction  in  Gen.  15:73,  and  Acts  7:6; 
but  it  is  contrary  to  the  narrative  (Ex.  12:40),  which  gives  the 
sojourn  in  Egypt  as  four  hundred  and  thirty  years.  However, 
the  LXX.  version,  by  an  insertion  in  the  text,  overcomes  the 
difficulty ;  but  this  text  is  not  accepted  by  the  best  criticism. 
This  difference  in  chronology  involves  an  error  either  on  one 
side  or  the  other.  Dillmann  shows  that  the  genealogical  tables 
are  also  widely  discrepant  in  the  number  of  generations  during 
the  period  from  the  descent  into  Egypt  until  the  law-giving. 
The  general  opinion  is  that  the  four  hundred  and  thirty  is  cor- 
rect and  that  Stephen  and  Paul  are  in  error. 

The  Professor  had  no  occasion  to  bring  the  state- 
ments of  Stephen  and  of  Gen.  15:  13  into  the  account; 
for  they  do  not  stand  on  the  same  footing  with  that 
made  by  Paul.  If  the  figures  of  Ex.  12:40  are  exact, 
then  these  two  are  sufficiently  so  as  general  statements. 
That  is,  if  the  actual  time  of  the  sojourn  in  Egypt  is 
four  hundred  and  thirty  years,  it  was  perfectly  legitimate 
in  prediction  to  use  round  figures  and  call  it  four  hun- 
dred years,  as  is  done  in  Genesis ;  and  it  was  equally 
legitimate  in  Stephen's  speech.  Paul's  statement  alone 
is  in  question,  and  the  mention  of  the  other  passages  in 
this  connection  is  calculated  only  to  confuse  readers  who 
are  not  accurately  informed. 

The  Professor  betrays  a  knowledge  of  the  true  ex- 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  45 

planation  of  this  matter  by  what  he  says  of  the  LXX. 
version,  yet  what  he  says  about  it  is  misleading.  He 
says :  "The  LXX.  version,  by  an  insertion  in  the  text, 
overcomes  the  (Hfficulty ;  but  this  text  is  not  accepted  by 
the  best  criticism."  The  insertion  referred  to,  instead 
of  overcoming  the  difficuhy,  as  is  here  asserted,  is  reahy 
the  occasion  of  it ;  and  the  question,  whether  this  inser- 
tion is  accepted  by  the  best  criticism,  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  matter  in  hand.  The  facts  in  the  case  are  these. 
The  Hebrew  text  of  Ex.  12:40  reads  thus:  "X^ow  the 
sojourning  of  the  children  of  Israel,  which  they  so- 
journed in  Egypt,  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years." 
The  text  of  the  LXX.  reads  thus:  "Xow  the  sojourning 
of  the  children  of  Lsrael  which  they  sojourned  in  the 
land  of  Canaan  and  in  Egypt,  was  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years."  The  latter  statement,  naturally  interpreted 
as  including  among  the  people  designated  their  fathers 
Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  means  that  it  was  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years  from  the  entrance  of  Abraham 
into  Canaan  till  the  giving  of  the  law,  which  occurred 
in  the  same  year  with  the  departure  from  Egypt.  This 
is  the  interpretation  which  was  actually  accepted  by 
many  of  the  older  modern  commentators,  and  they  con- 
strued the  figures  in  Genesis  and  in  Acts  accordingly. 
Now,  when  Paul  wrote  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians, 
and  all  through  the  period  of  X^ew  Testament  literature, 
the  version  of  the  LXX.  was  the  Bible  of  the  whole 
Jewish  and  Christian  world.  It  was  the  only  Bible  read 
by  Gentiles,  and  it  was  the  only  one  read  by  Jews,  except 
the  few  who  were  educated  in  Hebrew,  then  a  dead 
language,  as  it  is  this  day.  It  is  highly  probable  that 
Paul  was  the  only  one  of  the  twelve  apostle?  who  had 
been  educated  in  Hebrew,  and  could  read  with  fluency 
the   Hebrew   Bible.     This  must  naturallv  have  led  him 


46  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

to  read  It  but  little;  for  he  would  naturally  read  chiefly 
for  his  own  edification  the  version  which  he  was  com- 
pelled to  read  when  he  read  to  his  brethren.  It  is  due 
to  this  fact  that  much  the  greater  portion  of  the  quota- 
tions in  the  New  Testament  from  the  Old  are  taken  from 
this  version,  as  is  proved  by  their  agreeing  verbally 
more  closely  with  it  than  with  the  Hebrew.  There  was 
almost  a  necessity  laid  on  the  apostles  to  thus  quote  the 
Scriptures;  for  they  were  engaged  in  constant  contro- 
versy with  the  Jews,  and  any  serious  departure,  or  any 
departure  from  this  text  which  could  be  used  to  their 
apparent  advantage  in  controversy,  was  to  be  avoided. 
Men  of  mature  years  now  living  can  remember  when 
we  were  similarly  situated  with  regard  to  the  English 
version  then  used  universally  in  this  country  and  by 
many  regarded  as  the  original  word  of  God.  If  we 
departed  from  its  text  in  any  particular,  we  were  liable 
to  be  severely  criticized.  In  consequence  of  this  state  of 
things,  Paul,  in  the  passage  under  discussion,  took  the 
figures  of  the  Septuagint,  as  he  had  always  read  them, 
and  as  they  were  read  by  friends  and  foes  alike  :  and  it 
is  not  at  all  probable,  I  think,  that  he  had  ever  noticed 
the  difiference  between  them  and  those  in  the  Hebrew. 
Even  if  he  had,  he  had  not  been  able,  unless  a  special 
revelation  had  made  him  so,  to  decide  absolutely  which 
text  was  correct ;  that  is,  to  determine  whether  the  LXX. 
had  interpolated  the  text  in  translating  it,  or  the  Hebrew 
text  had  been  altered  since  the  version  of  the  LXX.  was 
made.  Had  he  followed  the  Hebrew  text,  any  one  of 
his  readers  whose  only  Bible  was  the  Greek,  might  have 
supposed  that  he  had  committed  an  error,  and  unde- 
sirable controversy  might  have  been  the  result — a  con- 
troversy for  which  the  scholars  of  that  age  were  il! 
prepared. 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  47 

This  is  undoubtedly  the  true  explanation  of  the  mat- 
ter, so  far  as  it  goes ;  but  the  question  whether  an  error 
was  committed,  is  not  yet  reached.  Did  Paul,  in  thus 
quoting-  figures  from  the  Septuagint  which  disagree  with 
those  in  the  Hebrew  text,  commit  an  error  ni  chronol- 
ogy ?  Grant  that  the  Septuagint  version  is  incorrect,  and 
how  is  it  with  Paul?  If  it  had  been  the  purpose  of  the 
latter  to  state  the  exact  period  between  the  promise  to 
Abraham  and  the  giving  of  the  law,  he  would  certainly 
have  committed  an  error ;  for  the  real  time  included  is 
nearer  six  hundred  years  than  four  hundred  and  thirty. 
But  was  this  his  purpose?  Is  this  what  he  was  aiming 
at?  His  real  aim  is  to  show  that  the  giving  of  the  law 
could  not  make  the  covenant  of  no  effect,  seeing  thiit 
it  came  a  long  time  after  the  covenant  was  confirmed ; 
and  he  says  that  it  came  four  hundred  and  thirty  years 
after.  This  is  strictly  true,  though  only  a  part  of  thi 
truth.  It  is  the  very  time  which  the  common  readers  of 
the  Greek  text  supposed  to  be  the  exact  time,  and  it  was 
long  enough  to  answer  the  purpose  of  Paul's  argument. 
If  he  had  said  four  hundred,  or  three  hundred,  years, 
this  would  also  have  been  true,  and  would  have  suited 
his  argument ;  and  his  only  reason  for  fixing  upon  four 
hundred  and  thirty  is,  that  these  figures  were  found  in 
the  text  commonly  read.  The  difficulty  is  overcome, 
then,  to  use  Professor  Briggs'  phraseolog}^  by  finding 
that  Paul  was  not  aiming  to  give  the  exact  time  between 
the  two  events,  but  simply  to  show  by  the  evidence  of 
the  common  version  of  the  Scriptures  that  the  one  came 
long  enough  after  the  other  to  serve  the  purpose  of  his 
argument.  He  is  guilty,  then,  of  no  error,  either  in 
thought  or  in  word,  although  he  makes  use  of  figures 
w^hich  were,  I  doubt  not,  mistakenly  used  by  the  trans- 
lators of  the  Greek  version.     It  is  a  case  like  this:   I 


48  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

say  in  conversation  that  I  have  not  seen  a  certain  man 
for  twenty  years.  It  is  discovered  afterward  that  the 
exact  time  since  I  saw  him  was  thirty  years.  Who  would 
think  of  charging  me  with  an  error?  There  ought  to 
be  no  need  of  aU  this  argumentation  to  correct  such  a 
man  as  Professor  Briggs ;  for  if  he  were  half  as  solicit- 
ous for  the  vindication  of  the  truthfulness  of  the  Bible 
as  he  is  for  the  establishment  of  his  false  theory  respect- 
ing it,  he  could  and  would  have  given  the  same  explana- 
tion, and  perhaps  he  would  have  given  it  more  force  thaii 
I  have,  or  can. 

I  must  not  pass  by  without  notice  wdiat  the  Professor 
says  about  the  genealogical  tables.  His  statement  that 
Dillmann  has  showed  that  these  tables  are  widely  dis- 
crepant in  the  number  of  generations  during  the  period 
between  the  migration  into  Egypt  and  the  exode,  is  not 
strictly  correct.  There  is  no  discrepancy,  and  conse- 
quently, though  I  have  not  seen  the  work  of  Dillmann, 
to  which  he  refers,  I  can  safely  call  in  cjuestion  the 
assertion.  The  genealogy  is  incomplete,  several  names 
having  been  omitted  from  the  list  of  the  ancestors  of 
Moses  and  Aaron  in  Ex.  6:  16-20,  as  in  Matthew's 
genealogy  of  our  Lord,  and  in  Ezra's  genealogy  of  him- 
self;  but  these  involve  neither  a  discrepancy  nor  a  mis- 
take. Here,  again,  I  venture  the  opinion  that  Professor 
Briggs  is  well  enough  posted  to  easily  defend  the  Bible 
against  this  charge,  if  a  defense  of  its  truthfulness  had 
been  the  purpose  before  him. 

In  conclusion,  I  will  say,  as  I  have  often  said,  that 
when  an  error  of  any  kind  is  clearly  proved  against  any 
writer  in  the  Bible,  I  will  admit  it,  and  let  it  modify  as 
much  as  it  must  my  view  of  the  book  in  which  it  is 
found;  but  I  am  not  ready  to  admit  the  existence  of 
errors  in  any  book  because  of  the  possibility  that  there 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  49 

may  be  some,  or  because  of  some  theory  of  inspiration 
which  is  consistent  with  their  existence.  Show  me  an 
error  which  is  not  fairly  accounted  for  as  the  work  of 
an  interpolator,  copyist  or  editor,  and  I  will  modify  my 
conception  of  inspiration  in  accordance  with  the  fact: 
but  do  not  ask  me  to  admit  some  loose  theory  of  inspira- 
tion in  order  to  account  for  errors  whose  existence  I  am 
required  to  admit  without  evidence. 


[July  8,   1893.] 

KINGS    AND    CHRONICLES. 

Any  one  who  carefully  compares  the  history  .of  Judah 
as  set  forth  in  Kings  with  that  contained  in  Chronicles, 
can  see  very  clearly  that  the  two  writers  treat  the  history 
from  very  distinct  points  of  view  ;  and  this  was  observed 
by  the  old  commentators,  who  wrote  before  modern 
destructive  criticism  was  thought  of.  In  the  latter  a 
special  purpose  in  writing  was  to  bring  into  greater 
prominence  than  it  had  received  in  the  older  books  the 
position  of  the  priesthood,  and  the  observance  of  the 
Levitical  law.  But  this  furnishes  no  reason  for  discredit- 
ing the  narration.  If  there  had  been  no  new  and  diirer- 
ent  point  of  view  from  which  to  see  the  history,  no  new 
book  \\*ould  have  been  written.  Does  any  one  now  dis- 
credit Macaulay's  History  of  England,  because  he  wrote 
with  a  purpose  quite  different  from  that  of  Hume? 
Does  he  discredit  Green's  History  of  the  English  People, 
because  it  looks  at  English  history  from  an  angle  quite 
different  from  that  of  either  Hume  or  I\Iacaulav?  Such 
an  absurdity  is  not  thought  of :  and  yet  men  who  boast 
of  being  adepts  in  the  criticism  of  history  are  guilty  of 
this  very  absurdity  when  they  treat  of  the  historical 
books  of  the  Bible. 


50  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

This  absurdity,  great  as  it  appears  from  the  consider- 
ation just  mentioned,  is  enormously  magnified  when  we 
consider  it  in  the  Hght  of  the  real  facts  respecting  those 
earlier  narratives  in  the  Books  of  Kings.  Has  any  one 
told  us  how  much  space  is  given  in  these  books  to  the 
history  of  Judah?  If  any  one  has,  I  have  not  seen  it. 
I  have  taken  the  pains  to  estimate  it  myself,  by  meas- 
uring separately  the  portion  of  the  joint  account  of 
Judah  and  Israel  between  the  death  of  Solomon  and  the 
captivity  of  Israel,  which  is  given  distinctively  to  Judah; 
and  although  the  period  covered  is  about  two  hundred 
and  fifty  years,  the  space  occupied  is  only  sixteen  pages 
and  a  fraction  in  my  Bible,  printed  in  pica  type.  In 
other  words,  if  the  whole  history  of  the  kingdom  of 
Judah,  found  in  the  Books  of  Kings,  during  this  two 
hundred  and  fifty  years,  were  printed  in  a  pamphlet  of 
ordniary  size,  with  large  type,  the  pamphlet  would  con- 
tain only  sixteen  pages.  But  brief — amazingly  brief — • 
as  this  history  is,  the  author  of  Chronicles  is  not  to  be 
believed  when  he  adds  to  it  a  few  statements.  When, 
that  is,  he  gives  a  little  more  fullness,  and  a  very  little, 
to  the  history  of  his  country,  and  especially  to  the  relig- 
ious aspect  of  the  history,  he  is  charged  with  inventing 
his  facts  because  they  are  not  found  in  the  little  pamphlet 
written  before  his  day.  There  has  never  been  such  an 
absurdity  in  historical  criticism,  I  suppose,  since  the 
world  began,  and  yet  this  is  the  stuff  we  are  required 
to  credit  as  ''scientific  criticism;'  or  incur  the  penalty  of 
being  styled  •  unscientific  traditionalists.  Yes,  ''anti- 
critics''  is  the  latest  name  invented  for  us,  Charles  A. 
Briggs  being  the  inventor. 

We  would  further  state  in  this  connection  that,  while 
only  sixteen  pages  of  the  joint  history  are  given  to  Judah, 
the  whole  number  of  pages  in  this  joint  history  is  eighty- 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  51 

four.  This  shows  that  the  author  of  the  Books  of  Kings 
had  in  view  chiefly  the  history  of  the  northern  kingdom, 
to  which  he  gives  sixty-eight  of  his  eighty- four  pages, 
and  that  the  account  which  he  gives  of  Judah  is  second- 
ary, if  not  incidental.  The  author  of  Chronicles  devotes 
so  much  of  his  space  as  relates  to  the  same  period  wholly 
to  the  kingdom  of  Judah;  and  he  narrates  more  fully 
both  the  political  and  religious  history  of  his  country. 
This  shows  the  difference  of  aim  of  the  two  writers,  and 
there  is  no  more  reason  to  charge  the  one  than  the  other 
with  an  aim  inconsistent  with  the  truth  of  nistory. 

\  great  deal  has  yet  to  be  written  in  defense  of  the 
Books  of  Chronicles,  and  I  hope  that  ere  long  some  com- 
petent scholar  will  give  us  a  volume  devoted  to  it. 


[July  22,  1893.] 

PROFESSOR  SAXDAY  OX  BIBLICAL  IXSPIRA- 

TIOX. 

Professor  Sanday,  of  Oxford,  is  one  of  the  most 
cautious  and  conservative  of  the  English  scholars  who 
have  accepted  the  leading  results  of  advanced  criticism. 
He  is  also  one  of  the  most  perspicuous  writers  of  the 
whole  class.  It  is  a  pleasure  to  read  what  he  writes  even 
when  you  can  not  agree  with  him.  He  has  publishe*:!, 
in  a  small  volume  under  the  title  "The  Oracles  of  God," 
nine  lectures  chiefly  devoted  to  the  subject  of  Biblical 
inspiration,  and  I  call  attention  to  it  because  it  illustrates 
the  inconsistencies  and  the  evil  tendencies  of  the  criti- 
cism which  he  has  espoused,  even  in  its  mildest  form. 

Critics  of  this  class  are  forced  into  inconsistencies  by 
the  effort  to  maintain  their  old  faith  while  avowing  con- 
victions which  they  vainly  try  to  reconcile  with  it.  Here,, 
for  instance,  is  an  extract  from  the  fifth  of  these  lec- 


52  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

tures,  which  one  might  credit  to  Bishop  ElHcott  or  Pro- 
fessor Green: 

The  Biblical  writers  themselves  were  convinced  that  the 
words  which  they  spoke  were  put  into  their  mouths  by  God. 
They  speak  in  accents  of  perfect  confidence  and  perfect  sin- 
cerity. There  is  none  of  the  straining  of  personal  assumption 
about  them.  They  take  no  credit  for  it.  In  the  most  conspicu- 
ous instances  there  is  not  only  no  eagerness  to  claim  inspiration, 
but  a  positive  shrinking  from  it.  Their  reluctance  is  in  each 
case  overborne  by  a  Power  which  the  writer  feels  to  be  outside 
himself.  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  took  hold  of  them  and  made 
them  for  the  time  being  its  organs.  This  was  their  own  belief. 
And  looking  back  upon  their  words  in  the  light  thrown  upon 
them  by  history,  we  can  not  think  they  were  wrong  (p.  62). 

How  easy  it  would  be,  if  a  man  were  interested  in 
showing  that  criticism  as  understood  by  this  writer  is 
thoroughly  harmless,  to  quote  this  passage  in  proof,  and 
declaim  against  those  who  oppose  it.  But  now  turn  a 
few  pages  and  see  what  this  author  says  in  another 
lecture : 

In  all  that  relates  to  the  revelation  of  God  and  his  will,  the 
writers  assert  for  themselves  a  definite  inspiration ;  they  claim 
to  speak  with  an  authority  higher  than  their  own.  But  in  regard 
to  the  narrative  of  events,  and  to  processes  of  literary  composi- 
tion, there  is  nothing  so  exceptional  about  them  as  to  exempt 
them  from  the  conditions  to  which  other  works  would  be 
exposed  at  the  same  time  and  place    (p.  75). 

I  know  nothing  which  would  mark  off  these  merely  as  nar- 
ratives from  others  of  the  same  kind  outside  the  Bible.  I  know 
of  nothing  which  should  isolate  them,  and  prevent  us  from  judg- 
ing them  as  we  should  other  similar  narratives.  Their  authority 
must  needs  rise  or  fall  according  to  the  relation  of  the  writer 
to  the  events ;  some  will  rank  higher,  some  lower ;  some  will 
carry  with  them  better  attestation  than  others.  But  so  far  as 
the  Bible  itself  instructs  us  on  the  point,  I  do  not  see  how  we 
can  claim  for  them  a  strict  immunity  from  error    (p.  70). 

Its  text  is  not  infallible;  its  grammar  is  not  infallible;  its 
science  is  not  infallible,  and  there  is  grave  question  whether  its 
history  is  altogether  infallible  (p.  36). 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  53 

Put  these  last  extracts  side  by  side  with  tlie  first,  and 
the  inconsistency  is  most  glaring.  Moreover,  while  the 
statements  in  the  first  are  based  on  the  express  declara- 
tions of  the  Bible  writers,  who  there  receive  full  credit 
for  what  they  claim,  there  is  no  citation  of  a  Bible  writer 
in  support  of  anything  said  in  the  latter.  Why  did  not 
Professor  Sanday  quote  something  from  a  prophet  or 
an  apostle  which  declares  that  when  writing  on  one  sub- 
ject they  wrote  by  inspiration,  but  that  when  writing 
mere  narrative  they  were  no  more  exempt  from  error 
than  other  writers  ?  He  has  searched  the  Bible ;  he 
knows  its  contents  well ;  and  surel}'  he  would  have  sup- 
ported his  assertions  on  this  point  by  some  Scripture 
statement,  if  such  can  be  found.  The  truth  is  that  such 
a  distinction  is  never  hinted  at  by  an  inspired  writer.  It 
is  a  fignient  of  the  imagination  devised  for  the  support 
of  a  destructive  theory.  The  only  passage  in  the  Bible 
which,  misconstrued  and  misapplied,  is  claimed  as  mak- 
ing some  such  distinction,  is  the  seventh  chapter  of  i 
Corinthians,  and  this  passage  is  not  a  narration,  but  a 
solemn  setting  forth  of  doctrine  on  the  all-important 
subject  of  marriage. 

Now  a  word  in  regard  to  the  tendencies  of  this  kind 
of  criticism  even  in  the  hands  of  such  cautious  and  con- 
servative men  as  Professor  Sanday  is  known  to  be.  In 
the  first  of  these  lectures  he  speaks  of  the  disquietude 
and  anxiety  of  good  people  which  have  been  excited  by 
the  writings  of  such  critics  as  himself,  and  the  purpose 
of  the  lecture  is  to  remove  these  feelings  from  his  read- 
ers.     Here  he  candidly  says : 

This  uneasy  feeling  is  not  lessened  by  the  fact  that  the 
expressions  of  opinions  by  which  it  has  been  excited  have  not 
had  anything  of  the  nature  of  an  attack.  They  have  not  come 
from  the  extreme  left  or  from  the  destructive  party  in  ecclesi- 


54      "  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

astical  politics  and  theology,  but  they  have  come  from  'men  of 
known  weight  and  sobriety  of  judgment,  from  men  of  strong 
Christian  convictions,  who,  it  is  felt,  would  not  lightly  disturb 
such  convictions  in  others ;  men,  too,  of  learning,  who  do  not 
gpeak  without  knowing  what  they  say   (p.  5). 

Here  by  the  expression,  "the  extreme  left,"  is  meant 
the  rationalistic  critics  of  Germany,  whom  he  also  styles 
"the  destructive  party  in  ecclesiastical  politics  and  the- 
ology." He  evidently  expects  to  receive  some  credit  with 
Englishmen  because  he  is  not  of  that  party.  Btit  in  the 
sixth  lecture,  where  he  sets  forth  the  gain  secured  by 
the  results  of  criticism,  he  says  : 

Of  course  I  do  not  mean  that  we  shall  grasp  the  whole 
amount  of  this  gain  at  once.  This,  too,  like  all  other  processes, 
must  be  gradual.  But  it  is  a  process  on  which,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  we  are  well  launched.  The  Continent  is  ahead  of  us  at 
present.  In  Germany  especially  the  results  of  criticism  have  been 
more  fully  assimilated,  but  I  believe  that  we  shall  soon  do  more 
than  make  up  for  lost  time.  As  the  scholars  of  our  own,  in 
whose  hands  the  working  out  of  these  problems  lies,  are  dis- 
tinguished by  a  peculiarly  happy  balance  between  the  interest  of 
religion  and  of  science,  we  may  be  sure  that  the  one  will  not 
be  sacrificed  to  the  other  (p.  83). 

Here  there  is  an  indirect  admission  that  English 
critics  are  well  launched  on  the  process  on  which  the 
Continental,  and  especially  the  German  critics,  are  already 
ahead  of  them,  and  there  is  a  confident  hope  that  they 
will  soon  more  than  make  up  for  lost  time.  True,  there 
is  an  expression  of  hope  that  they  will  not,  as  the  others 
have  done,  sacrifice  religion  to  science,  but  how  can  they 
avoid  this,  if  they  follow  hard  after  those  who  are  before 
them  in  the  race?  And  how  can  this  hope  be  enter- 
tamed,  when  to  the  full  extent  of  the  following  thus  far 
the  effects  upon  the  faith  of  the  people  are  the  same? 

This  evil  tendency  is  also  plainly  seen  in  Professor 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  55 

Sanday's  treatment  of  another  theme  which  he  intro- 
duces in  the  course  of  his  lectures,  the  relation  of  the 
religion  of  the  Dible  to  those  which,  in  the  Bible,  are 
everywhere  referred  to  as  false  religions.  It  is  a  com- 
mon characteristic  of  the  advocates  and  exponents  of 
destructive  criticism  to  minimize  the  difference  between 
the  true  religion  and  heathenism,  and  to  give  to  the  latter 
a  credit  which  is  utterly  denied  in  the  Bible.  A  few 
extracts  will  show^  this  characteristic  of  the  lectures 
before  us : 

No  doubt  there  is  a  relative  justification,  similar  in  kind  to 
that  which  has  just  been  urged  in  this  lecture,  for  other  rehgions 
besides  Christianity.  Mohammedanism  we  need  not  count,  be- 
cause its  best  elements  are  common  to  Christianity  and  derived 
from  it  or  from  Judaism.  But  Buddhism  may  allege  with  good 
reason  the  number  of  its  votaries.  It  is  impossible  to  read  the 
life  and  teaching  of  Gautama  without  feeling  that  he  too  had 
an  impulse  from  the  Holy  One.  It  would  be  little  in  accordance 
with  Christian  doctrine  to  maintain  that  the  divine  influences 
which  were  vouchsafed  in  so  large  a  measure  to  select  spirits 
in  Palestine  were  wholly  wanting  in  India  or  Greece  (p.  46, 
note). 

I  can  not  bring  myself,  and  there  is  really  nothing  in  the 
history  of  Christianity  to  compel  me  to  bring  myself,  to  divide 
religions  absolutely  into  true  and  false.  From  the  first  days  of 
Christian  teaching  down  to  our  own  there  has  not  been  wanting 
a  succession  of  men  who  have  seen  and  rejoiced  in  the  elements 
of  good  in  creeds  which  we  have  not  subscribed.  Take  a  phe- 
nomenon like  the  oracle  at  Delphi ;  take  that  most  touching 
account  which  Plato  gives  of  the  daimonion  of  Socrates;  take 
the  teaching  of  Gautama  (Buddha)  ;  analyze  the  character  of 
Mohammed — shall  we  say  there  is  no  spark  from  heaven  in 
these   (p.  94)  ? 

Enough  for  the  present — enough  to  show  that  the 
most  conservative  class  of  the  advanced  critics  are  "well 
launched"  on  the  stream  which  has  floated  German  the- 
ologians into  blank  unbelief,  and  which  has  so  adulter- 


56  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

atecl  the  puic  gold  of  the  Bible  as  to  make  it  distinguish- 
able only  in  degree  from  the  heathenism  of  ancient 
Greece  and  modern  India.  Let  young  men  who  havo 
had  thought  of  launching  their  little  barks  on  the  same 
waters  take  notice  and  think  before  they  act. 


[July  29,  1893.] 

HOW   SHALL  WE   SPELL  THE   NAME? 

Scholars  owe  something  to  the  uneducated,  and  often 
they  are  neglectful  of  the  debt.  They  owe  to  them  such 
simplicity  of  speech  as  will  convey  their  meaning  with- 
out confusion.  We  have  in  our  printed  Bibles,  in  a  few- 
instances,  the  name  Jehovah;  and  if  the  American  Com- 
mittee of  the  Revisers  had  prevailed,  we  should  have  had 
it  hundreds  of  times  in  our  Old  Testament.  It  is  the 
distinctive  personal  name  in  Hebrew  of  the  true  God. 
Instead  of  giving  us  this  name  in  the  English  version, 
the  translators  have  represented  it  by  the  word  Lord, 
printed  in  capital  letters.  It  has  become  quite  common 
to  use  the  name  in  critical  writings ;  and  it  is  often  neces- 
sary to  do  so  in  order  to  preserve  precision ;  but  the 
uneducated  reader  is  confused  by  finding  it  printed  in 
various  works  in  three  different  forms.  Some  writers 
have  it  Yahveh,  some  Yahweh,  and  some  Jehovah,  while 
Dr.  James  Robertson  has  recently  introduced  the  form 
Jahaveh.  The  first  two  come  nearer  representing  the 
original  than  Jehovah,  and  so  does  the  last ;  but  so  long 
as  the  last  is  found  in  our  English  Bible  I  think  it  is  due 
to  the  unlearned  reader  that  English  scholars  shall  give 
it  the  preference.  If  there  were  a  difference  in  the 
meaning,  this  would  be  proper;  for  accuracy  of  knowl- 
edge should  never  be  sacrificed  for  the  accommodation 
of  ignorance ;  but  in  this  case  nothing  is  involved  but  the 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  57 

form  of  representing"  in  English  a  Hebrew  name,  and 
the  form  which  our  Bible  places  before  the  common 
reader  should,  in  accommodation  to  him,  be  employed 
by  scholars. 


[Aug.  5,  1893.] 

OF   HIMSELF?  OR  OF   SOME  OTHER   MAX? 

When  the  eunuch  raised  the  question  in  reg-ard  to  the 
fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah,  "Of  whom  speaketh  the 
prophet  this?  of  himself?  or  of  some  other  man?"  Philip, 
settled  it  for  him  in  a  few  minutes  ;  and  for  unsophis- 
ticated believers  it  has  been  settled  ever  since.  But  the 
critics  who  have  discovered  that  Isaiah  did  not  write  the 
last  half  of  the  book  which  bears  his  name,  and  have 
propounded  a  new  interpretation  of  much  of  it,  have 
also,  at  least  some  of  them,  discovered  that  Philip  was 
mistaken  in  his  interpretation.  Professor  Smend,  of 
Gottingen,  has  published  a  very  elaborate  work  on  "The 
History  of  the  Religion  of  the  Old  Testament,"  in  which 
he  gives  a  totally  different  answer  to  the  eunuch's  ques- 
tion. He  is  represented  in  the  July  Tliinkcr  as  follows: 
"Professor  Smend  agrees  with  Professor  Duhm  in  sup- 
posing that  there  was  some  Israelite  saint  of  rare  piety 
and  meekness  who  was  misunderstood  and  martyred,  and 
whose  sufiferings  and  death  were  believed  to  atone  for 
the  sin  of  his  people,  of  whom  no  distinct  trace  can  be 
found  in  any  other  part  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  or  in 
Jewish  tradition.  This  unknown  martyr  was  regarded 
by  the  equally  unknown  author  of  these  hymns,  and  by 
the  not  less  unknown  compiler,  usually  designated  as 
Deutero-Isaiah,  as  the  spiritual  father  of  men  who  would 
establish  a  new  Israel,  which  would  be  converted  to 
Jehovah,  and  would  obtain  pardon  from  him  on  the  basis 


58  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

of  the  atonement  provided  by  the  martyr's  death.  The 
innocent  sufferer  would,  by  his  unmerited  suffering  and 
death,  atone  for  and  restore  the  sinful  people,  and  so 
live  again  in  Israel,  and  thereby  carry  out  Jehovah's  pur- 
pose for  the  world.  The  age  which  witnessed  this  un- 
precedented martyrdom  is  virtually  pronounced  undis- 
coverable  by  Professor  Duhm,  although  he  half  hints 
that  it  may  have  lain  between  the  Exile  and  Maccabean 
period.  Such  writers  seem  to  have-  adopted  the  rule, 
anything  to  get  rid  of  the  truth. 


[Sept.  30,  1893.] 

THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  HEBREWS. 

The  fact  that  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews purposely  wrote  anonymously  made  room  for  a 
discussion,  which  began  in  the  second  century  and  has 
continued  to  the  present  day,  as  to  who  the  author  was. 
Of  course,  when  the  epistle  first  went  forth  among  the 
disciples,  its  authorship  was, known  to  those  into  whose 
hands  it  was  placed  for  distribution.  But  the  absence 
of  the  author's  name  indicates  a  purpose  to  keep  it  con- 
cealed, and  those  to  whom  it  was  first  intrusted  were 
doubtless  charged  to  promote  this  purpose.  We  have 
no  means  of  knowing  to  what  extent  it  was  successfully 
carried  out  at  the  time,  or  during  the  first  hundred 
years ;  but  the  ej:)istle  came  down  to  the  close  of  the 
third  century  under  Paul's  name,  yet  with  doubts  in  the 
minds  of  some  whether  it  was  named  correctly.  Euse- 
bius,  who  lived  at  this  period,  says :  "Of  Paul  the  four- 
teen epistles  commonly  received  are  at  once  manifest  and 
clear.  It  is  not  right,  however,  to  ignore  the  fact  that 
some  have  rejected  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  assert- 
ing that  it  is  gainsaid  by  the  Church  of  Rome  as  not 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  59 

being  Paul's."  This  shows  that  some  doubtecl  the  C])is- 
tle,  and  that  the  point  of  doubt  was  its  authorship. 
Eusebius  himself,  however,  does  not  entertain  this  doubt ; 
for  he  says  that  "the  fourteen  epistles,"  commonly  re- 
ceived as  Paul's,  "are  at  once  manifest  and  clear." 

Origen,  who  was  a  teacher  at  the  close  of  the  second 
century,  and  who  wrote  about  one  hundred  years  earlier 
than  Eusebius,  is  quoted  by  the  latter  as  saying:  "I 
would  say  that  the  thoughts  are  the  apostle's,  but  the 
diction  and  phraseology  belong  to  some  one  who  has 
recorded  what  the  apostle  said,  and  one  who  wrote  down 
at  his  leisure  what  his  master  dictated.  If,  then,  any 
church  considers  this  epistle  as  coming  from  Paul,  let 
it  be  commended  for  this ;  for  neither  did  those  ancient 
men  deliver  it  as  such  without  cause.  But  who  it  was 
that  actually  wrote  the  epistle,  God  only  knows.  The 
account,  however,  that  has  been  current  before  us  is, 
according  to  some,  that  Clement,  who  was  bishop  of 
Rome,  wrote  the  epistle  :  according  to  others,  that  it  was 
written  by  Luke,  who  wrote  the  Gospel  and  Acts" 
(Eccles.  Hist.  W.  25).  A  careful  inspection  of  these 
words  brings  out  the  following  points  of  evidence : 
First,  that  "the  ancient  men,"  those  so  called  in  the  end 
of  the  second  century,  had  delivered  this  epistle  to  their 
successors  as  having  come  from  Paul.  Second,  that 
there  had  been  current,  before  Origen's  day,  the  belief 
among  some  that  the  composition  of  the  epistle  was  the 
work  of  Clement,  and  among  others  that  it  was  the  work 
of  Luke.  Third,  that  even  those  who  held  the  one  or 
the  other  of  the  last  two  opinions,  believed  that  Paul  was 
the  author  of  the  thoughts,  and  that,  having  dictated 
these  to  Clement  or  Luke,  as  the  case  might  be,  he  had 
left  the  composition  in  the  hands  of  the  latter.  In  this 
instance  the  difiference  between  the  work  performed  by 


6o  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

the  latter  and  that  of  Tertius,  who  wrote  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  is  that  in  the  latter  case  Paul  dictated  the 
words,  and  that  in  the  former  he  gave  utterance  to  the 
thoughts,  a  paragraph  or  a  section  at  a  time,  and  left 
the  exact  expression  of  it  to  his  trusted  fellow-laborer. 
Fourth,  that  Origen  was  himself  fully  convinced  of  the 
correctness  of  this  view  of  the  process,  but  was  unde- 
cided as  to  the  person  employed  as  composer.  Let  it  be 
observed,  too,  though  it  is  not  stated  here,  but  else- 
where, that  the  ground  of  this  theory,  as  to  the  com- 
position, was  not  some  historical  information  to  this 
effect,  but  the  difference  in  style  between  this  epistle  and 
those  written  under  Paul's  name.  It  was,  indeed,  an 
attempt  to  account  for  a  difference  in  style  in  a  docu- 
ment which,  with  all  its  differences,  has  many  of  Paul's 
peculiarities  of  style,  and  the  thoughts  of  which  were 
so  thoroughly  Pauline  that  they  could  not,  with  any 
show  of  reason,  be  ascribed  to  any  other. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  was  a  contemporary  of  Ori- 
gen, and  w^as  his  immediate  predecessor  as  teacher  of  the 
catechetical  school  in  his  native  city.  He  says  nothing 
of  the  epistle  in  his  extant  writings,  but  his  opinion  is 
quoted  by  Eusebius  from  one  of  his  lost  works,  as  fol- 
lows :  "The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  written  to  the 
Hebrews  by  Paul  in  the  Hebrew  tongue ;  but  it  was 
carefully  translated  by  Luke,  and  published  among  the 
Greeks.  Whence  one  also  finds  the  same  character  of 
style  and  of  phraseology  in  the  epistles  as  in  Acts.  But 
it  is  probable  that  the  title,  Paul  the  apostle,  was  not 
prefixed  to  it.  For  as  he  wrote  to  the  Hebrews  who 
had  imbibed  prejudices  against  him,  and  suspected  him, 
he  wisely  guards  against  diverting  them  from  the  pe- 
rusal by  giving  his  name"  (Eccles.  Hist.  VL  14).  This 
is  another  attempt  to  reconcile  the  undoubted   Pauline 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  6i 

authorship  of  the  thoughts  in  the  epistle  with  the  simi- 
larity of  the  style  to  that  of  Luke.  The  fact  that  his 
explanation  differs  from  that  of-  his  friend  and  contem- 
porary, Origen,  shows  that  neither  rested  on  historical 
information,  but  on  conjecture.  To  Clement  it  appeared 
more  reasonable  to  suppose  that  Luke's  style  got  into  the 
document  by  his  translating  it  out  of  Hebrew  into  Greek, 
than  by  his  being  left,  after  hearing  Paul  express  his 
thoughts,  to  write  them  down  in  his  own  way.  The 
conjecture,  too,  that  he  at  first  wrote  in  Hebrew,  was 
not  an  improbable  one,  seeing  that  he  wrote  especially 
for  Hebrew  readers.  Finally,  the  probable  reason  sug- 
gested for  the  singular  fact  that  no  name  was  attached 
to  the  document,  notwithstanding  its  obvious  character 
as  an  epistle,  is  thoroughly  in  harmony  with  the  facts 
in  the  case. 

Tertullian,  who  was  a  contemporary  of  both  Clement 
and  Origen,  and  who  lived  at  Carthage,  says,  without 
qualification,  that  the  epistle  was  written  by  Barnabas  ; 
but  he  does  not  state  the  grounds  for  the  assertion,  and 
we  find  no  trace  of  this  opinion  in  any  other  ancient 
writer.  Tertullian  was  a  Latin,  and  not  a  Greek,  scholar, 
and  consequently  he  was  not  able  to  appreciate  those 
differences  of  style  which  had  arrested  the  attention  of 
his  two  famous  contemporaries,  who  were  thoroughly 
educated  in  Greek  from  their  childhood.  These  three 
are  the  great  Christian  scholars  and  writers  of  their  age  ; 
and  their  statements  furnish  reliable  information  as  to 
the  state  of  opinion  in  their  day,  say  one  hundred  and 
forty  years  after  the  date  of  the  epistle  if  Paul  wrote  it 
or  dictated  it.  After  this  time  doubts  were  still  enter- 
tained by  many  as  to  its  Pauline  authorship,  until  the 
meeting  of  the  Council  of  Carthage  at  the  close  of  the 
fourth  century,  when  the  question  seems  to  have  been 


62  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

settled  among"  ancient  scholars  ;  for  this  council  ascribed 
the  epistle  to  Paul  without  qualification.  From  that  time 
the  question  rested  until  Luther  revived  it  by  expressing 
the  opinion  that  Apollos  was  the  author ;  but  his  opinion 
was  allowed  to  pass  almost  in  silence,  until  it  was  revived 
by  Farrar,  and  supported  by  elaborate  argumentation  in 
his  "Early  Days  of  Christianity."  Since  then  it  has  been 
quite  the  style  to  echo  Farrar's  opinion,  and  it  has  become 
almost  universal  to  deny  that  Paul  was  the  author.  This 
modern  denial  of  the  Pauline  authorship,  however,  had 
its  origin  farther  back.  It  was  argued  strenuously  by 
Baur  and  his  successors  of  the  Tubingen  school  of 
rationalists,  and  believing  critics  have  very  generally 
succumbed  to  the  arguments  of  the  great  unbeliever. 

It  appears  to  me  like  one  of  the  freaks  of  criticism 
that  a  document  whose  Pauline  authorship  is  denied 
chiefly  on  the  ground  of  its  style  should  be  ascribed  by 
those  who  make  this  objection  to  one  of  whose  style 
these  critics  know  absolutely  nothing;  for  they  have  not 
a  line  from  the  pen  of  Apollos,  nor  even  a  sentence 
quoted  from  any  of  his  speeches ;  and  how,  then,  can 
they  know^  anything  at  all  about  his  style?  The  scholars 
of  the  second  century  reasoned  more  sensibly;  for  they 
knew  the  style  of  Luke,  and  of  Clement  of  Rome,  and 
consequently  they  did  not  strike  out  in  the  dark  when 
they  ascribed  the  composition  of  this  document  to  the 
one  or  the  other. 

Apart  from  the  question  of  style,  which  is  a  most 
precarious  ground  on  which  to  argue  the  authorship  of 
a  document,  especially  when  it  is  admitted,  as  in  this 
case,  that  the  document  contains  many  of  Paul's  pecu- 
liarities of  expression,  Farrar  enumerates  ten  facts  by 
which  he  identifies  the  author.  I  quote  them  with  a 
remark  under  each: 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  63 

1.  *'The  writer  was  a  Jew;  for  he  writes  as  thoitti^h 
heathendom   were  practically  non-existent." 

But  Paul  was  a  Jew  ;  and  in  writing-  to  the  Jews  on 
a  question  between  Jew  and  Jew,  there  might  be  no 
occasion  to  make  mention  of  heathendom. 

2.  "He  was  a  Hellenist;  for  he  exclusively  quotes  the 
Septuagint  version,  even  where  it  diverges  from  the 
original  Hebrew." 

But  Paul  was  a  Hellenist,  and  in  his  acknowledged 
epistles  he  usually  quotes  the  Septuagint  version.  In 
writing  to  Hebrew^s,  he,  as  well  as  Apollos,  might  do 
this ;  and  either  might  do  it  with  propriety,  seeing  that 
the  Hebrews  of  the  time  were  far  more  familiar  with 
the  Greek  version  than  with  the  Hebrew  original. 

3.  "He  had  been  subjected  to  Alexandrian  training; 
for  he  shows  deep  impress  of  Alexandrian  thought,  and 
quotes  from  Alexandrian  ^ISS.  of  the  Septuagint  with- 
out pausing  to  question  the  accuracy  of  the  renderings." 

The  latter  part  of  this  reason  is  a  repetition  from  the 
second  ;  and  the  first  part  has  no  force,  seeing  that,  so 
far  as  there  is  truth  in  it,  Paul  might  have  been  im- 
pressed with  Alexandrian  thought  by  his  extensive  read- 
ing, without  having  lived  in  that  city. 

4.  "He  was  a  man  of  great  eloquence,  of  marked 
originality,  of  wide  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
of  remarkable  gifts  in  the  application  of  Scripture  argu- 
ments." 

And,  pray,  was  not  Paul  pre-eminent  in  every  one 
of  the  same  characteristics?  H  they  belonged  to  Apol- 
los, much  more  to  Paul. 

5.  "He  was  a  friend  of  Timotheus,  for  he  proposes 
to  visit  the  Jewish  churches  in  his  company." 

And  who  was  a  more  intimate  friend  of  Timotheus 
than  Paul?     Is  Mr.  Farrar  right  sure  that  Apollos  ever 


64  SHORT    ESSAYS   IN 

met  Timothy  face  to  face?     If  he  did,  there  is  no  hint 
of  it  in  the  New  Testament. 

6.  "He  was  known  to  liis  readers,  and  writes  to  them 
in  a  tone  of  autliority." 

But  Paul  was  well  known  to  a  vast  number  of  the 
Hebrews ;  and  although,  as  Clement  suggests,  he  might 
have  wished  to  remain  unknown  as  the  author  of  the 
epistle  to  many  of  his  expected  readers,  he  might  cer- 
tainly be  well  known  as  such  in  the  particular  community 
to  which  the  epistle  was  first  sent.  And  as  for  the 
authority  with  which  he  writes,  why  should  this  be 
thought  less  characteristic  of  Paul  the  apostle  than  of 
Apollos  the  evangelist? 

7.  "He  was  not  an  apostle:  for  he  classes  himself 
with  those  who  had  been  taught  by  the  aposties." 

This  is  an  allusion  to  what  is  said  of  "the  great  sal- 
vation" (2:3),  which,  "first  spoken  by  the  Lord,  was 
confirmed  unto  us  by  them  who  heard  him."  But  this 
is  true  of  Paul,  though  he  was  an  apostle,  seeing  that, 
to  use  his  own  expression,  he  was  "born  out  of  due 
time ;"  for  although,  as  he  said  to  the  Galatians,  there 
was  a  certain  sense  in  which  the  gospel  was  revealed  to 
him  by  God,  and  in  which  he  did  not  receive  it  from 
men  (Gal.  i  :  11,  12),  yet  that  which  had  been  "spoken 
first  by  the  Lord"  zvas  confirmed  unto  him  by  the  apos- 
tles. Li  other  words,  the  personal  career  of  our  Lord 
is  the  subject  of  this  remark,  and  Paul  did  learn  this 
from  the  older  apostles.  He  learned  much  of  it  while 
he  was  an  unbeliever. 

8.  "The  apostle  by  whom  he  had  been  taught  was 
St.  Paul,  for  he  largely  though  nidependently  adopts 
his  phraseology,  and  makes  a  special  use  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans." 

Here  is  a  concession  which  knocks  the  breath  out  of 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  65 

all  the  preceding  statements  which  had  any  hreath  in 
them  ;  for  who  would  be  so  likely  to  adopt  Paul's  pre- 
ceding phraseology,  and  to  make  special  use  of  his  other 
great  epistle,  as   Paul  himself? 

9.  "He  wrote  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
and  while  the  temple  services  were  still  continuing." 

Yes  ;  but  this  had  to  be  so  if  Paul  was  the  writer, 
for  the  temple  services  were  still  continuing  when  Paul 
was  beheaded. 

10.  "It  is  doubtful  whether  he  had  ever  been  at  Jeru- 
salem, for  his  references  to  the  temple  and  its  ritual 
seem  to  apply,  not  indeed  to  the  temple  of  Onios  at 
Leontopolis,  but  mainly  to  the  tabernacle  as  described 
in  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  Pentateuch." 

But  what  is  more  natural,  when  arguing  from  the 
law  of  Aloses,  than  to  make  his  references  to  the  taber- 
nacle which  Aloses  built,  rather  than  to  the  temple  built 
by  Solomon,  or  by  Herod?  And  how  can  this  imply  that 
he  had  never  been  in  Jerusalem  ?  Does  a  man  have  to 
be  in  Jerusalem  in  order  to  read  the  last  chapters  of 
Exodus  ? 

I  have  been  led  into  this  discussion  partly  by  a 
request  received  in  a  letter  some  weeks  ago,  but  more 
especially  by  having  just  read  in  the  Tliinkcr  an  article 
on  the  question  by  W.  M.  Lewis.  The  writer  starts  out 
with  the  statement  that  "the  Pauline  authorship  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  can  not  be  maintained  by  the 
arguments  hitherto  adduced  by  its  advocates.  The  place, 
time  and  circumstances  given  during  the  life  of  Paul  to 
its  production,  are  untenable,  and  leave  its  difficulties 
unexplained."  Then  he  proceeds  to  tell  us  that  it  was 
written  in  C?esarea  during  Paul's  two  years'  imprison- 
ment there ;  and  that  the  thoughts  and  sentiments  were 
given  by  the  apostle  to  Luke,  to  be  clothed  by  him  in  his 


66  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

style  and  lang-uage  in  his  private  study.  "The  thoughts 
are  those  of  the  apostle;  the  writer  was  Luke.  The 
style  and  language  of  the  epistle  belong  to  the  latter, 
together  with  some  subsidiary  thoughts  and  an  unavoid- 
able coloring,  even  to  the  subject-matter." 

I  am  so  unfortunate  as  not  to  know  W.  AI.  Lewis; 
and  I  can  not  decide  with  certainty  whether  the  article 
in  the  Thinker  is  his,  or  a  representation  of  his  by  the 
editor ;  but,  at  any  rate,  here  is  a  return  to  the  theory 
of  the  Pauline  authorship  by  a  writer  who  says  that  the 
old  theory,  to  the  same  effect,  is  untenable.  The  only 
difference,  however,  is  that  this  theory  locates  the  writ- 
ing in  C?esarea  instead  of  Rome,  which  is  not  really  a 
new  supposition,  for  it  has  been  held  before  by  some 
of  the  advocates  of  the  old  theory.  Furthermore,  the 
supposed  process  of  the  composition  is  but  a  revival  of 
Origen's  supposition,  so  that  the  nineteenth  century  goes 
back  to  the  second  century  for  instruction  on  a  question 
which  was  settled  for  us  that  long  ago.  If  Air.  Lewis' 
essay  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  pointer,  it  looks  as  if  the 
authorship  of  this  noble  document,  which  is,  and  ever 
must  be,  the  world's  only  safe  guide  in  tracing  the  dis- 
tinction between  Judaism  and  Christianity,  is  to  be  set- 
tled at  last  on  the  only  man  in  the  early  church  who 
fully  understood  the  subject,  the  great  apostle  to  the 
Gentiles.     So  may  it  be. 


[Oct.  7,  1893-] 

IS  THERE  A  DOUBLE  ACCOUNT  OF 

CREATION  ? 

The  article  which  we  published  on  this  subject  re- 
cently, from  the  pen  of  Professor  Grubbs,  was  con- 
clusive, I  think,  on  the  points  which  he  discussed.     But 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  67 

it  is  impossible  to  exhaust  such  a  tlieme  in  a  single  news- 
paper article,  and  1  propose  to  look  again  at  it  from  a 
somewhat  different  point  of  view. 

Our  readers  are  aware  that  the  analytical  theory  of 
the  origin  of  Genesis  assumes  that  the  account  of  crea- 
tion, beginning  at  the  first  verse  of  chapter  i,  and  closing 
with  the  first  clause  of  chapter  2,  verse  4,  is  complete 
in  itself,  and  was  written  in  its  present  form  by  a  priestly 
writer  about  the  time  of  the  Babylonian  captivity,  while 
the  account,  beginning  with  the  second  clause  of  chapter 
2.  verse  4,  is  a  separate  and  contiicting  account,  written 
by  a  dift'erent  author  at  an  earlier  period,  perhaps  before 
the  captivity.  Both,  of  course,  were  written  many  hun- 
dreds of  years  after  Closes.  Our  present  task  is  to 
inquire  whether  the  narratives  in  these  two  chapters  are 
two  independent  and  conflicting  accounts  of  creation,  or 
one  harmonious  account,  the  latter  chapter  being  in- 
tended to  supply  details  which  had  been  omitted  in  the 
first. 

The  account  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  six  days'  work 
is  so  familiar  that  I  will  not  go  over  it.  That  in  the 
second  chapter  is  less  familiar ;  so  let  us  see  what  it  is. 
It  begins  thus:  "In  the  day  when  the  Lord  God  made 
earth  and  heaven,  no  plant  of  the  field  was  yet  in  the 
earth,  and  no  herb  of  the  field  had  yet  sprung  up:  for 
the  Lord  God  had  not  caused  it  to  rain  upon  the  earth, 
and  there  was  not  a  man  to  till  the  ground  :  but  there 
went  up  a  mist  from  the  earth,  and  watered  the  whole 
face  of  the  ground."  Here  our  attention  is  fixed  on  the 
moment  when  there  was  as  yet  no  vegetation  on  the 
earth,  yet  there  was  dry  ground  which  was  watered  by 
mist,  though  it  had  not  yet  rained.  The  next  statement 
is  this:  ''And  the  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of 
the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of 


68  SHORT   ESSAYS   IX 

life;  and  man  became  a  living  soul."  That  is,  the  forma- 
tion of  man,  including  the  material  of  his  body  and  the 
source  of  his  life,  is  mentioned  next  after  the  state- 
ment respecting  the  absence  of  vegetation  and  rain.  The 
next  statement  is:  "And  the  Lord  God  planted  a  garden 
eastward  in  Eden  ;  and  there  he  put  the  man  whom  he 
had  formed.  And  out  of  the  ground  the  Lord  God  made 
to  grow  every  tree  that  is  pleasant  to  the  eye,  and  good 
for  food ;  and  the  tree  of  life  in  the  midst  of  the  garden, 
and  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  And 
a  river  went  out  of  Eden  to  water  the  garden."  Now. 
if  this  account  was  the  only  one  in  our  possession,  we 
would  suppose  that  this  last  statement  is  the  account  of 
the  creation  of  vegetation  on  the  earth.  True,  the  state- 
ment is  confined  to  a  single  spot,  the  garden  in  which 
the  man  had  been  placed,  and  it  says  nothing  about  vege- 
tation outside  of  the  garden  :  but  this  would  not  prevent 
the  conclusion  just  mentioned,  and  we  would  have  to 
concede  what  the  critics  say,  that  this  account  represents 
man  as  being  created  first,  and  vegetation  afterward. 

After  a  description  of  the  river  which  watered  the 
garden,  and  an  account  of  man's  privilege  and  duty 
there,  the  next  statement  connected  with  creation  is  this : 
"And  the  Lord  God  said,  It  is  not  good  that  the  man 
should  be  alone :  I  will  make  him  a  help  meet  for  him. 
And  out  of  the  ground  the  Lord  God  formed  every 
beast  of  the  field,  and  every  fowl  of  the  air,  and  brought 
them  unto  the  man  to  see  what  he  would  call  them :  and 
whatsoever  the  man  called  every  living  creature,  that 
was  the  name  thereof."  It  is  clear  that,  on  the  supposi- 
tion v\-e  are  following,  this  would  be  regarded  as  the 
account  of  the  first  formation  of  beasts  and  birds,  and 
vre  would  consequently  suppose  that  they  also  were 
formed   after  man.     Then    follows   the   account   of  the 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  69 

formation  of  a  woman:  and  thus,  she  would  seem  to 
have  been  formed  last  of  all,  with  the  creation  of  vegeta- 
tion and  of  beasts  and  birds  between  the  man  and  her. 
If,  then,  as  the  anal>tical  critics  affirm,  this  second  chap- 
ter is  an  independent  account  of  creation,  written  by  an 
author  who  knew  nothing  of  that  given  in  the  first  chap- 
ter, the  contradiction  between  the  two  is  obvious.  But 
it  has  not  come  down  to  us  as  a  separate  document. 
Whatever  may  have  been  its  origin,  it  has  come  to  us 
through  the  hands  of  the  writer  of  the  Book  of  Genesis, 
and  in  passing  through  his  hands,  the  two  documents,  if 
there  were  two,  have  been  combined,  and  in  our  study 
of  them  it  is  our  duty  to  ascertain,  if  we  can,  what  he 
meant  to  teach  by  the  combination  which  he  has  made 
of  them.  It  is  said  by  the  critics,  that  he  put  them 
together  without  attempting  to  rec(jncile  their  contradic- 
tions, and  with  full  knowledge  that  these  contradictions 
existed.  If  he  did,  he  was  a  most  singular  kind  of  a 
writer,  thus  to  put  together  contradictorv^  stones,  which 
he  knew  were  contradictory,  without  offering  a  word  of 
explanation.  Such  a  piece  of  work  on  the  part  of  an 
intelligent  and  serious  author,  who  wrote  to  be  believed, 
has  not  its  parallel.  I  venture  to  affirm,  in  all  literature, 
and  if  we  find  it  in  this  author,  we  shall  be  compelled, 
with  the  rationalists,  to  give  him  a  ven.'  low  grade  as  a 
writer,  and  to  wholly  mistrust  him  as  a  historian.  I 
think  that  this  must  be  our  conclusion,  if  so  be  that  the 
alleged  contradictions  between  the  two  accounts  really 
exist.     Let  us  see  how  that  is. 

As  the  writer  of  Genesis,  be  he  Moses,  or  a  priest  of 
the  captivity,  or  a  redactor  of  a  still  later  period,  cer- 
tainly put  these  two  accounts  together  in  his  book,  he 
must  certainly  have  written  down  the  latter  with  some 
reference  to  the  former,  and  it  is  cruel  injustice  to  him 


70  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

to  assume  that  he  contradicts  in  the  second  chapter  what 
he  has  written  in  the  first,  if,  on  any  fair  and  reasonable 
hypothesis,  both  accounts  can  be  understood  to  be  true. 
Let  us  see  if  they  can.  First,  then,  if  the  account  of  the 
third  day's  work  in  the  first  chapter  is  true,  the  first 
statement  of  the  second  chapter  agrees  with  it  perfectly  ; 
for,  just  before  the  creation  of  vegetation,  on  the  third 
day,  the  dry  ground  had  appeared,  and  it  may  have  been 
true,  as  stated  in  the  second  chapter,  that  no  rain  had 
fallen,  but  that  a  mist  went  up  over  the  face  of  the  earth 
and  watered  the  ground.  It  was  also  certainly  true  that 
there  was  not  yet  a  man  to  till  the  ground.  Secondly, 
if  the  first  chapter  is  true,  it  may,  at  the  same  time,  be 
true  that  God  formed  man  out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground, 
and  breathed  in  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life ;  for  the 
first  chapter,  though  it  says  that  God  made  man,  says 
nothing  about  the  process  by  which  he  made  either  his 
body  or  his  soul.  Thirdly,  a  man  who  had  already  writ- 
ten the  account  of  the  third  day's  work  in  the  first  chap- 
ter, stating  that  on  that  day  God  caused  the  earth  to 
bring  forth  all  manner  of  vegetation,  and  who  then  gives 
the  account  of  his  causing  to  grow  all  the  trees  in  the 
garden  of  Eden,  must  of  necessity  be  understood  in  the 
last  as  referring  to  that  garden  alone,  and  not  to  vegeta- 
tion in  general.  So  there  is  no  contradiction  in  the  state- 
ment of  the  planting  of  that  garden  after  the  creation 
of  man.  Fourth,  when  the  writer  who  had  already  said 
that  God  created  the  beasts  and  the  fowls  before  he  did 
man,  says,  in  connection  with  man's  naming  the  animals, 
what  he  had  not  said  expressly  before,  that  God  formed 
them  from  the  dust  of  the  ground,  he  can  only  mean  to 
supplement  his  former  statement,  not  to  contradict  it. 
Fifthly,  when  the  writer  who  has  already  said  that  God 
made  a  male  and  female  in  making  man,  proceeds  later 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  71 

to  tell  the  process  by  which  he  formed  the  female,  he 
again  supplements  this  preceding  account,  and  in  doing' 
so  he  adopts  a  method  of  narration  which  is  common 
among  authors  of  every  age  and  country.  This,  then, 
is  the  true  state  of  the  case  in  regard  to  this  narrative 
of  creation,  whatever  may  be  true  as  to  the  documentary 
origin  of  the  book  in  which  it  is  found;  and  it  is  equally 
true  whether  the  book  was  written  by  Moses  or  by  an 
unknown  redactor  of  an  unknown  age.  I  hold  that  com- 
mon fairness  to  a  stranger,  if  the  author  is  a  stranger, 
demands  that  we  shall  so  conclude  ;  for  whoever  he  was 
he  was  not  a  fool.  And  if  he  was  ]\Ioses,  then  certainly 
we  must  deal  with  him  fairly  by  supposing  that  he  knew 
what  he  was  about,  and  that  he  intended  to  compose  a 
consistent  narrative.  Finally,  I  may  say  with  all  con- 
fidence, that  no  man  ever  could  have  suspected  that  there 
was  a  contradiction  between  these  two  chapters,  until  he 
first  conceived  or  adopted  the  theory  that  we  have  here 
two  accounts  from  different  authors,  neither  of  whom 
had  seen  the  account  of  the  other.  The  thought  of  a 
contradiction,  therefore,  is  an  afterthought,  not  demand- 
ing the  theory,  but  begotten  by  it.  It  is  a  bastard,  and 
it  ought  to  be  excluded  from  the  congregation,  as  saith 
the  law. 


[Oct.  14.  1893-1 
CRITICISM    AXD    WITTICISM. 

Under  this  heading  there  is  an  editorial  in  the  Chris- 
tian-Evangelist reviewing  the  last  lesson  which  I  gave 
its  senior  editor.  He  says:  "Professor  McGarvey,  so 
far  as  we  know,  never  manifested  the  qualities  of  a 
humorist  until  he  assumed  the  role  of  a  Biblical  critic." 
He  does  me  too  great  honor  in  representing  me  as  hav- 


72  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

ing  assumed  the  role  of  a  Biblical  critic.  I  make  no 
such  pretension.  I  only  aim  to  stand  in  between  the 
critics,  some  of  whom  I  have  had  opportunity  to  study, 
and  my  brethren  who  have  not  enjoyed  this  opportunity, 
that  I  may  give  the  latter  the  benefit  of  my  readings, 
and  guard  them  against  being  misled.  If  the  editor 
had  known  me  better,  he  would  have  known  that,  with- 
out being  a  humorist,  I  have  always  been  somewhat 
given  to  humor ;  perhaps  too  much  so  for  a  preacher. 
I  have  always  been  disposed  to  laugh  at  things  which 
were  ludicrous,  and  the  only  development  in  this  respect 
of  which  I  am  conscious  in  connection  with  Biblical  criti- 
cism, is  this :  I  find  myself  now  disposed  to  laugh  at 
some  things  which  once  made  me  angry.  When  I  first 
began  to  read  these  destructive  critics,  I  was  like  Elihu 
while  listening  in  silence  to  the  sophistical  arguments  of 
Job  and  his  friends — my  wrath  was  kindled.  I  recollect 
particularly  that  when  I  read  Robertson  Smith's  ''Old 
Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,"  I  was  out  of  humor 
from  beginning  to  end.  But  now  that  I  see  farther  into 
the  sophistries  and  follies  of  the  critics,  I  laugh  at  some 
things  which  then  kindled  my  wrath.  I  have  experienced 
a  change  somewhat  like  that  of  the  barnyard  animals 
when,  after  the  ass  had  come  in  clothed  with  the  lion's 
skin,  and  had  frightened  them  all,  they  saw  his  long  ears 
stick  out,  and  all  broke  into  a  roar  of  laughter.  I  must 
be  excused,  then,  if  I  laugh  at  some  of  the  ridiculous 
positions  of  the  critics  and  their  apologists. 

I  have  observed,  too,  that  some  things  are  exposed 
in  their  nakedness  as  soon  as  you  turn  the  laugh  on 
them,  and  that  a  good  laugh  is  sometimes  more  effective 
than  any  amount  of  argument.  If  a  fellow  should  stand 
up  and  say  that  two  and  two  make  five,  and  you  should 
undertake  to  argue  with  him,  such  a  fellow  will  dispute 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  73 

all  day,  and  have  the  last  word  in  spite  of  you.  But  if 
you  laugh,  the  company  will  probably  laugh  with  you, 
and  that's  an  end  of  the  matter.  It  is  precisely  so  in 
regard  to  many  of  the  positions  and  expositions  of  the 
destructive  critics ;  so  I  have  laughed,  and  I  will  laugh, 
at  their  folly.  If  I  were  writing  a  book,  I  would  try  to 
straighten  my  face  and  put  on  my  dignity  ;  but  as  I  am 
only  writing  for  a  weekly  paper,  I  can  afford  to  have  a 
little  fun. 

I  trust  that  my  efforts  to  induce  the  editor  of  the 
Ez'an^^clist  to  deal  more  fairly  with  the  Presbyterians  in 
regard  to  the  Briggs  trial,  have  been  eft'ectual ;  but  while 
he  drops  the  Presbyterians  in  his  last  article,  he  runs  a 
tilt  against  the  apostles  ;  and  I  see  that  I  must  ,2:ive  him 
another  lesson  before  I  let  him  go.  He  says:  "It  can 
hardly  be  doubted  that  between  Paul  and  the  other  apos- 
tles there  were  graver  differences  than  those  embodied 
in  the  charges  against  Professor  Briggs.  And  yet  we 
never  read  of  Paul  recommending  that  any  of  his  fellow- 
apostles  be  tried  for  heresy."  This  is  a  statement  that 
I  dare  not  laugh  at.  It  is  too  serious.  If  the  editor 
means  what  he  says,  he  is  himself  involved  in  a  graver 
error  than  any  charged  against  Professor  Briggs.  The 
thought  here  uttered  is  an  echo  from  Christian  Baur, 
and  the  Tubingen  school  which  he  founded.  We  all 
know  very  well  that  Peter  was  once  involved  in  a  moral 
aberration  which  Paul  disapproved  and  severely  rebuked, 
and  from  which  I'eter  promptly  recovered;  but  if  there 
were  doctrinal  differences  between  them,  whether  as 
serious  as  those  between  Professor  Brig-gs  and  the  Pres- 
byterians, or  less  so,  the  Tubingen  professors  were  never 
able  to  show  it,  and  the  editor  of  the  Christian-Evan- 
gelist will  scarcely  succeed  where  they  have  failed. 
Prove  this  proposition,   and  you   have   swept   awa}-  the 


.-74  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

very  foundation  of  apostolic  authority.  But  I  will  not 
press  the  point  further  until  the  editor  shall  have  an 
opportunity  to  explain  himself.  I  am  not  willing  to 
believe  that  he  has  here  expressed  his  real  conviction ; 
and  I  therefore  ask  him  to  say  whether  he  means  what 
he  says;  and,  if  he  does,  I  respectfully  call  for  some 
specifications  of  the  dififerences  between  Paul  and  the 
other  apostles,  which  are  so  obvious  that  they  can 
"hardly  be  doubted,"  and  which  are  graver  than  the 
errors  charged  against  Professor  Briggs. 


[Oct.  21,  1893-] 

COUNTING    NOSES. 

One  of  the  most  common  devices  of  the  advocates 
of  error  in  all  ages  has  been  that  of  counting  up  the 
number  of  persons  who  adhere  to,  or  have  adhered  to, 
a  certain  theory  or  system,  as  proof  that  it  is  true.  In 
the  days  of  Ahab  there  were  four  hundred  prophets 
claiming  to  be  prophets  of  Jehovah  who  said  that  if  he 
and  Jehoshaphat  went  up  to  Ramoth-Gilead  to  battle, 
the  Lord  would  prosper  them,  while  Micaiah  alone  said 
the  opposite.  Ahab  had  four  hundred  to  one  in  favor  of 
his  enterprise,  yet  he  went  and  lost  his  life,  as  the  one 
prophet  said  he  would.  In  the  days  of  Martin  Luther, 
and  ever  since,  one  of  the  popular  arguments  in  favor 
of  Roman  Catholicism  has  been  the  superior  number  of 
its  adherents  as  compared  with  Protestantism.  And 
now,  in  the  controversy  over  the  conclusions  of  destruc- 
tive critics,  there  is  an  everlasting  ding-dong  in  our  ears 
about  the  greater  number  of  real  scholars  who  have 
accepted  the  new  views  of  the  Bible.  Professor  Briggs 
used  it  for  all  it  was  worth  in  his  defense  before  the 
presbytery,    and    since   then   we   see   the   argument    (?) 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  -js 

reiterated  on  every  hand.  With  the  aid  of  seven  Ger- 
man, American  and  British  scholars,  whom  he  names  as 
his  helpers.  Professor  Briggs  hunted  up  the  names  of 
twenty-five  men  in  .America,  thirty-two  in  Great  Britain 
and  ninety- four  in  Germany,  who  have  accepted,  at  least 
in  part,  the  views  on  the  Pentateuch  and  Isaiah  which 
he  himself  holds,  or  then  held.  I  suppose  that  these 
were  all  that  could  be  found,  and  after  all  the  noise  that 
has  been  made,  the  scholarship  of  the  age  being  all  one 
way  on  these  questions,  it  is  really  a  surprise  that  the 
number  is  so  small.  In  looking  over  the  list  I  find  one 
distinguished  American  whom  he  has  omitted,  and  one 
still  more  distinguished  Englishman.  Col.  Bob  Ingersoll 
is  the  American,  and  James  ]\Iartineau.  whom  he  styles 
one  of  the  "representative  Christians  of  the  present 
time,"  is  the  Englishman.  Inasmuch  as  he  mentions  all 
the  infidel  professors  in  the  German  universities,  and 
also  ]\Iatthew  Arnold,  of  England,  and  Professor  Toy, 
of  this  country,  I  don't  see,  either,  why  he  confined  him- 
self to  infidels  who  have  lived  recently ;  for  he  might 
have  increased  his  list  very  materially  by  taking  in  Vol- 
taire, and  all,  or  nearly  all,  the  infidels  that  have  lived 
since  Dr.  Astruc  first  suggested  the  Pentateuch  an- 
alysis. 

But  what  does  this  long  list  of  names,  whether 
printed  by  Professor  Briggs  or  copied  from  him  by 
newspaper  writers,  prove?  Nothing,  except  that  recent 
infidels,  and  some  men  who  still  claim  to  be  believers  in 
the  divinity  of  Christ,  have  accepted  the  criticism  which 
the  infidels  of  former  generations  busily  propagated, 
with  an  intermixture  of  a  few  new  points  of  objection 
to  established  views.  But  in  proving  this,  it  brings  into 
bold  relief  another  fact  that  these  boasters  seem  to  lose 
sight  of — the  fact  that,  while  these  one  hundred  and  fifty 


76  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

enumerated  have  reached  these  conclusions,  all  the  rest 
of  the  scholars  in  the  world,  who  have  watched  their 
proceedings,  and  read  their  numberless  essays  and  books, 
have  seen  through  their  fallacies,  and  rejected  their  con- 
clusions. The  latter  class  are  a  hundred- fold  more 
numerous  than  the  former ;  so  that,  if  counting  noses 
amounted  to  anything  in  the  proof  of  theories,  the  new 
theories  would  be  proved  false  by  a  large  majority. 
True,  the  self-styled  critics  affirm  that  none  of  these  men 
of  the  latter  class,  except  one  here  and  there,  is  capable 
of  judging,  and  that  the  few  who  are  capable  are  old 
men  who  have  formed  their  opinions  long  ago,  and  are 
too  conservative  to  change.  By  this  they  comfort  them- 
selves. For  example,  since  the  publication  by  Bishop  El- 
licott  of  "Christus  Comprobator,"  Professor  Cheney  has 
pronounced  him  a  "reactionary  theologian."  His  remark 
reminds  me  of  the  professor  who  got  too  close  to  the 
heels  of  a  mule,  when  he  received  a  backset,  and  after 
his  recovery  from  the  shock,  concluded  that  a  mule  was 
a  reactionary  kind  of  animal.  But  let  this  vast  host  of 
scholarly  professors  and  preachers  in  Europe  and  Amer- 
ica, who  have  not  accepted  these  conclusions,  be  set 
down  as  low  as  you  please  in  scholarship,  yet  it  must 
still  be  admitted  that  they  are  capable  of  judging  what 
an  argument  is,  and  what  evidence  is.  They  are  com- 
petent to  serve  on  a  jury.  They  have  not  been  asleep 
while  the  ''critics"  have  been  at  work.  If  the  "critics" 
had  no  readers  but  one  another,  none  of  their  books 
would  have  paid  for  paper  and  presswork.  These  other 
scholars  have  been  reading  what  the  "critics"  have  pub- 
lished;  and  even  if  not  one  in  a  thousand  of  them  could 
have  written  such  books,  they  can  understand  them  after 
they  are  written,  and  they  can  judge  whether  they  sus- 
tain by  competent  evidence  the  theories  which  they  pro- 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  77 

pound.  They  have  rendered  their  verdict,  most  of  them 
in  a  quiet  way,  and  the  verdict  is,  not  proven. 

As  to  the  point  that  some  o*f  those  who  made  this 
verdict  are  old  men,  who  have  made  "up  their  minds  long 
ago,  it  may  be  well  to  remember  that  in  that  long  ago 
the  young  men  who  have  become  "critics"  had  their 
minds  made  up  the  same  way,  and  the  only  difference 
is  that  the  youngsters  have  changed  and  their  seniors 
have  not.  Yet  those  seniors  have  seen  and  heard  and 
weighed  and  rejected  all  that  has  convinced  the  young- 
sters. It  is  not  always  the  case  that  the  young  are  wiser 
than  the  old. 

I  may,  perhaps,  be  pardoned  for  a  personal  remark 
or  two  in  this  connection.  I  have  seen,  for  several  years 
back,  indications  here  and  there  that  some  who  knew  me 
by  name  have  entertained  the  idea  that,  while  they  were 
keeping  up  with  the  times  in  criticism  and  some  other 
matters,  I  and  some  other  fellow-workers  have  been  fast 
asleep  in  regard  to  the  world's  progress.  I  suppose  that 
my  experience,  of  which  I  will  tell  a  little,  is  the  counter- 
part of  that  of  thousands  who  stand  on  these  questions 
where  I  do.  W^hen  I  was  but  a  boy  I  read  some  of  the 
writings  of  older  English  infidels.  I  was  just  out  of 
college  when  the  once  famous  work,  '*\^estiges  of  Crea- 
tion," fell  into  my  hands.  When  Colenso's  work  on  the 
Pentateuch  and  Joshua,  the  work  which  first  introduced 
German  criticism  of  the  Hexateuch  to  English  readers, 
first  made  its  appearance,  I  procured  it,  and  made  a  care- 
ful study  of  it.  From  these  early  readings  I  became 
familiar  with  nine-tenths  of  the  points  of  argument  now 
employed  by  the  masters  of  criticism  in  its  present  form. 
As  time  went  on  I  studied  Baur,  Strauss  and  Renan; 
and  more  recently  I  have  made  it  my  duty  to  inform 
myself  in  the  later  theories  of  the  new  critical  school, 


78  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

and  I  stand  where  I  do  to-day,  not  in  the  unbeHef  of 
ignorance,  but  in  the  unbehef  of  investigation.  I  make 
no  boast  of  superior  abihty  to  judge  of  arguments  and 
evidence,  but  I  suppose  I  have  an  average  capacity  in 
that  respect,  and  that  what  is  true  of  myself  is  true  of  a 
vastly  greater  number  of  living  Biblical  students  than 
can  be  arrayed  in  favor  of  the  conclusions  which  I  have 
set  myself  to  oppose,  because  I  abhor  them  as  dishonor- 
ing to  God  and  injurious  to  men.  If  the  "critics"  insist 
upon  counting  noses,  the  count  is  against  them. 


[Jan.  6,  1894.] 

JESUS    ON    PSALM    no. 

I  believe  that  all  of  the  destructive  critics,  without 
exception,  deny  to  David  the  authorship  of  Psalm   no. 
In  doing  so  they  raise  an  issue  with  our  Lord  not  less 
direct  than  that  in  regard  to  the  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch.    His  position  on  the  subject  was  brought  out  in 
an  argument  with  the  Pharisees,  which  is  thus  reported 
by  Matthew:  "Now  while  the  Pharisees  were  gathered 
together,   Jesus    asked   them   a   question,    saying.    What 
think   ye   of   the   Christ?   whose    son   is   he?     They   say 
unto  him,  The  son  of  David.     He  saith  unto  them.  How 
then  doth  David  in  the  Spirit  call  him  Lord,  saying. 
The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord, 
Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand. 
Till  I  put  thy  enemies  under  thy  feet? 
If  David  calleth  him  Lord,  how  is  he  his  son?"   (Matt. 
22:41-45). 

The  quotation  here  made  is  from  the  Psalm  in  ques- 
tion. It  is  expressly  ascribed  to  David :  and  David  is 
said  to  have  uttered  it  "in  the  Spirit,"  which  means,  by 
the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit.     Not  only  so,  but  the  argu- 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  79 

ment  based  on  it  depends  for  its  validity  on  the  fact  that 
the  words  are  David's:  "If  David  calleth  him  Lord,  how 
is  he  his  son?"  Unless  David  in  person  is  meant,  the 
argument  is  a  sophism  ;  for  it  is  the  assumed  fatherhood 
of  the  speaker  that  made  it  a  puzzle  to  the  Jews  how 
he  could  call  his  own  son  or  descendant  his  Lord.  If 
David,  then,  were  not  the  author  of  the  Psalm,  it  would 
appear  that  Jesus  has  not  only  asserted  as  a  fact  that 
which  is  not  a  fact,  but  that  he  has  based  an  argument 
on  this  falsely  assumed  fact,  to  do  which  is  to  perpetrate 
a  transparent  fallacy.  Now,  let  us  turn  to  the  critics  and 
see  on  what  ground  they  took  a  position  which  thus 
reflects  upon  the  character  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Driver,  in  his  Introduction  (p.  362,  n.  i),  presents 
the  reasons  more  compactly  than  any  other  whom  I  have 
read,  and  I  quote  what  he  says,  omitting  only  some 
references  that  are  not  necessary  to  the  full  presentation 
of  his  thoughts : 

This  Psalm,  though  it  may  be  ancient,  can  hardly  have  been 
composed  by  David.  If  read  without  praejudicium,  it  produces 
the  irresistible  impression  of  having  been  written,  not  by  a  king, 
with  reference  to  an  invisible,  spiritual  being,  standing  above 
him  as  his  superior,  but  by  a  prophet,  with  reference  to  the 
theocratic  king.  (i)  The  title,  "My  lord"  (verse  i),  is  the 
one  habitually  used  in  addressing  the  Israelitish  king.  (2)  Mes- 
sianic prophecies  have  regularly  as  their  point  of  departure  some 
institution  of  the  Jewish  theocracy — the  king,  the  prophet,  the 
people,  the  high  priest,  the  temple:  the  supposition  that  David 
is  here  speaking  and  addressing  a  superior,  who  stands  in  no 
relation  to  existing  institutions,  is  not,  indeed,  impossible  (for 
we  have  not  the  right  to  limit  absolutely  the  range  of  prophetic 
vision),  but  contrary  to  the  analogy  of  prophecy.  (3)  The 
justice  of  this  reasoning  is  strongly  confirmed  by  verses  3.  5-7, 
where  the  subject  of  the  Psalm  is  actually  depicted,  not  as  such 
a  spiritual  superior,  but  as  a  victorious  Israehfish  monarch, 
triumphing,  through  Jehovah's  help,  over  earthly  foes.  The 
Psalm  is  Messianic  in  the  same  sense  that  Psalm  2  is;  it  depicts 


8o  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

the  ideal  glory  of  the  theocratic  king  who  receives  from  a 
prophet  the  twofold  solemn  promise  (o)  of  victory  over  his 
foes;  {h)  of  a  perpetual  priesthood.  These  are  the  reasons 
(and  the  only  ones)  by  which  the  present  writer  is  influenced 
in  his  judgment  of  the  Psalm.  In  the  question  addressed  by  our 
Lord  to  the  Jews,  his  object,  it  is  evident,  was  not  to  instruct 
them  on  the  authorship  of  the  Psalm,  but  to  argue  from  its 
contents;  and  though  he  assumes  the  Davidic  authorship,  gener- 
ally accepted  at  the  time,  yet  the  cogency  of  his  argument  is 
unimpaired,  so  long  as  it  is  recognized  that  the  Psalm  is  a 
Messianic  one,  and  the  august  language  used  is  not  compatible 
with  the  position  of  one  who  was  a  mere  human  son  of  David. 

The  vital  part  of  this  argtiment  is  the  attempt  to 
explain,  in  harmony  with  the  position  taken,  the  remarks 
of  Jesus ;  and  we  shall  consider  this  attempt  first. 

The  remark  that  the  object  of  Jesus  was  not  to 
instruct  the  Pharisees  on  the  authorship  of  the  Psalm, 
but  to  argue  from  its  contents,  is  undoubtedly  correct ; 
but  it  is  pointless,  though  the  first  part  of  it  was  evi- 
dently intended  to  make  a  point  which  is  no  point.  Of 
course  he  was  not  aiming  to  teach  them  the  author- 
ship of  the  Psalm,  any  more  than,  when  he  asked  them 
to  show  him  the  tribute  money,  he  meant  to  teach  them 
that  this  was  the  money  with  which  they  paid  tribute. 
He  merely  mentions  a  fact  in  each  instance,  with  which 
he  and  they  alike  were  already  familiar.  This  point-no- 
point  has  only  the  effect  of  throwing  a  little  dust,  and 
very  little  at  that.  The  writer  himself  states  the  truth 
in  his  very  next  remark,  where  he  says  that  Jesus  ''as- 
sumes the  Davidic  authorship,  accepted  generally  at  the 
time."  But  here  he  seems  not  to  have  been  aware  of 
what  he  was  saying;  for  if  Jesus  "assumed  the  Davidic 
authorship"  in  his  argimient,  when  David  was  not  the 
author,  then  he  unquestionably  made  a  false  assumption 
on  which  to  build  his  argument ;  and  Driver  here  openly 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  8i 

accuses  him  of  fallacious  reasoning.  Unconscious,  how- 
ever, of  having  clone  this,  our  author,  in  the  very  next 
clause,  says:  "Yet  the  cogency  of  his  argument  is  unim- 
paired"! The  cogency  of  the  argument  unimpaired  by 
the  proof  that  it  is  based  on  a  false  assumption ! 

Driver  fails  entirely  to  see  the  real  argument  which 
our  Saviour  makes ;  for  he  says,  continuing,  that  the 
argument  is  unimpaired  "so  long  as  it  is  recognized  that 
the  Psalm  is  a  ^.lessianic  one,  and  that  the  august  lan- 
guage used  in  it  of  the  [Messiah  is  not  compatible  with 
the  position  of  one  who  was  a  mere  human  son  of 
David."  This  can  not  be  true,  for  the  very  good  reason 
mentioned  above,  that  the  argument  of  Jesus  turns  upon 
the  personal  relation  of  David,  the  speaker,  to  his  son, 
the  Messiah.  "If  David  calleth  him  Lord,  how  is  he  his 
son?"  Any  other  prophet  might  call  him  Lord  without 
the  incongruity  implied,  biit  David  could  not ;  and  the 
argument  is  pointless  and  fallacious,  unless  David,  in 
person,  is  the  author  of  the  Psalm. 

Such,  now,  is  the  feebleness  and  inconsistency  of  the 
attempt  made  by  a  scholar  of  high  rank  and  acknowl- 
edged learning,  in  his  vain  attempt  to  set  aside  the  force 
of  testimony  which,  if  allowed  to  stand,  overthrows  a 
whole  system  of  interpretation.  Wq  might  properly  rest 
the  whole  issue  here  :  but,  for  the  purpose,  not  so  much 
of  strengthening  this  refutation,  as  for  exposing  still 
further  the  fallacious  reasoning  of  this  critical  school, 
let  us  look  at  the  reasons  given  for  denying  the  Davidic 
authorship  of  this  Psalm.  The  first  is.  that  the  title  "my 
lord,"  as  it  is  expressed  in  Hebrew,  is  the  one  usually 
applied  to  the  kings  of  Israel.  So  it  is:  but  what  of  it? 
This  is  the  very  title  which  David  could  not  apply  to  his 
son  and  successor  on  the  throne;  for  though  he  would 
be  the  lord  of  his  own  subjects,  he  could  not  be  the  lord 


82  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

of  his  own  father  and  predecessor.  It  was  this  very 
consideration  which  puzzled  the  Pharisees,  so  long  as 
they  denied  divinity  to  the  coming  Messiah.  The  second 
is  that  '"Messianic  prophecies  have  regularly,  as  their 
point  of  departure,  some  institution  of  the  Jewish  theoc- 
racy." 

Well,  suppose  they  have,  "regularly ;"  would  this 
prevent  some  exceptions  to  the  regular  rule?  How 
many  rules  are  there  which  have  no  exceptions  ?  But 
this  instance  is  not  an  exception,  for  the  kingship  is  the 
very  institution  of  the  Jewish  theocracy  which  is  made 
the  point  of  departure,  the  king  predicted  being  one 
whom  David  himself  could  speak  of  as  his  lord.  The 
third  reason  is  that  in  the  latter  part  of  this  Psalm  its 
subject  is  depicted,  "not  as  such  a  spiritual  superior,  but 
as  a  victorious  Israelitish  monarch,  triumphing  through 
Jehovah's  help  over  earthly  foes."  This  is  also  true ; 
but  what  of  it?  Dr.  Driver  knows  that  the  moral  and 
spiritual  victories  of  our  Lord  are  very  commonly  de- 
picted under  the  symbols  of  earthly  warfare.  This  is 
true  not  of  the  Old  Testament  prophets  alone,  but  of 
writers  and  speakers  in  the  New.  See  the  song  of 
Zacharias  (Luke  1:68-75);  see  vision  after  vision  in 
the  Apocalypse;  and  see  the  oft-recurring  use  of  this 
imagery  in  the  epistles  of  Paul.  And  it  is  also  true  that 
in  the  most  literal  sense  this  Lord  of  David,  since  he 
ascended  to  his  throne,  has  been  fulfilling  the  latter  part 
of  this  Psalm.  Who  but  he  has  been  judging  among 
the  nations,  striking  through  kings  in  the  day  of  his 
wrath,  and  filling  the  places  with  dead  bodies  (vs.  5,  6)  ? 

We  have  now  before  us,  in  the  treatment  of  our 
Lord's  remarks  respecting  this  Psalm,  another  example 
of  the  pitiable  makeshifts  to  which  critics  resort  when 
they  have  to  confront  his  divine  assertion  in  opposition 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  83 

to  their  theories.  Such  attempts  would  be  regarded  as 
contemptible  if  they  came  from  the  pens  of  common 
men  ;  they  are  truly  pitiable  as  the  products  of  men  in 
high  repute  for  scholarship  and  logical  discrimination. 
Scholarship  can  not  be  denied  to  them;  but  if  they  pos- 
sess logical  or  exegetical  powers  above  those  of  ordinary 
men,  they  have  a  poor  way  of  showing  it. 


[Jan.  13.  1894.] 
CRUMBS    FOR    UXBELIE\'ERS. 

It  is  a  perfectly  natural  and  proper  feeling  that 
prompted  David,  in  his  dirge  on  the  death  of  Saul  and 
Jonathan,  to  exclaim  : 

"Tell  it  not  in  Gath, 
Publish  it  not  in  the  streets  of  Askelon ; 
Lest  the  daughters  of  the  Philistines  rejoice. 
Lest  the  daughters  of  the  uncircumcised  triumph." 

It  is  equally  natural  and  proper  for  Christians  to  be 
pained  at  anything  which  gives  encouragement  to  unbe- 
lievers in  their  opposition  to  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ. 
Such  is  undoubtedly  the  effect  of  all  the  writings  of  the 
advanced  critics,  so  far  as  unbelievers  make  themselves 
acquainted  with  them.  Witness  the  following  extract 
from  a  notice  of  Horton's  "A^rbum  Dei,"  by  the  editor 
of  the  Arena: 

When  such  leaders  of  orthodoxy  as  Canon  Farrar  declare 
their  faith  in  restoration.  Professor  Drummond  accepts  unre- 
servedly the  theory  of  evolution,  Professor  Briggs  boldly  an- 
nounces the  conclusion  that  many  find  God  through  the  Bible, 
as  did  Spurgeon  ;  through  the  church,  as  did  Cardinal  Newman, 
and  through  nature,  as  did  Martineau ;  and  lastly,  when  the 
American  Board  votes  126  to  24  in  favor  of  Rev.  Mr.  Xoyes — 
who  believes  in  probation  for  the  heathen — it  is  quite  evident 
that  a  religious  revolution  is  on  in  orthodox  churches. — Arena 
for  December. 


84  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

To  such  a  writer,  Horton's  lectures,  in  which  he 
claims  the  same  kind  of  inspiration  which  was  enjoyed 
by  the  prophets  and  apostles,  are,  of  course,  very  great 
productions  ;  and  the  evident  reason  is  that  taking  such 
ground  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  the  prophets  and 
apostles  had  no  inspiration  at  all,  in  any  proper  sense 
of  the  word. 


[Jan.  20,  1894.] 
A    SERMON    BY    A    "CRITIC." 

The  Christian  Coiniuonwcalth,  London,  publishes  a 
sermon  by  some  one  of  the  leading  English  preachers 
every  week.  The  sermon  in  a  recent  number  is  from 
the  pen  of  Prof.  T.  K.  Cheyne,  who  is  the  acknowledged 
leader  of  the  most  advanced  wing  of  the  English  critics. 
So  radical  is  he  in  his  critical  theories  that  I  was  curious 
to  see  how  he  would  handle  the  word  of  God  in  preach- 
ing to  the  people  ;  so  I  read  the  sermon  with  eagerness. 
I  must  furnish  my  readers  with  a  few  extracts  from  the 
sermon,  so  as  to  afford  them  the  same  gratification  which 
it  has  given  me.  Remember,  that  the  gratification  which 
I  mean  is  gratification  of  curiosity.  I  would  be  ashamed 
to  spend  the  preaching-hour  on  a  Lord's  Day  in  hearing 
a  sermon  for  curiosity,  but  to  read  one  in  a  day  of  the 
week  for  that  purpose  may  not  be  wrong. 

The  text  of  this  sermon  is  Alatt.  5:4,  5,  the  second 
and  third  of  the  Beatitudes.  It  begins  with  these  sen- 
tences : 

It  is  a  beautiful  tradition,  preserved  for  us  by  Matthew,  and 
in  itself  historically  probable,  that  when  the  Lord  Jesus  first 
opened  his  mouth  in  public  teaching,  he  uttered  the  sweet  words, 
"Blessed  are  the  poor :  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
Suppose  that  the  devout  disciple,  Matthew,  or  some  other  who 
compiled  the  great  sermon,  had  given  the  first  place  to  a  saying 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  85 

like  this,  "Except  your  righteousness  shall  exceed  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven."  what  a  different  effect  would  have  been 
produced  I 

Notice  how  uncertain  this  preacher  is  about  the 
source  of  his  text.  First,  it  is  a  "beautiful  tradition" 
that  Jesus  used  the  words  referred  to  at  the  beginning 
of  his  teaching.  Second,  this  "beautiful  tradition"  is 
"preserved  for  us  by  Matthew."  Third,  it  was  pre- 
served bv  ^Matthew,  or  "some  other  who  compiled  the 
great  sermon."  How  strengthening  to  the  faith  of  his 
auditors  it  must  have  been  to  hear  this  scholarly 
preacher  thus  throw  uncertainty  over  the  source  of  this 
"beautiful  tradition."  How  much  more  precious  to  them 
m.ust  ^Matthew's  Gospel  have  appeared  as  they  listened 
to  such  preaching! 

Notice  again  how  accurately  this  eminent  scholar 
quotes  the  Scripture  on  which  he  is  commenting: 
''Blessed  are  the  poor :  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  And  then,  how  accurate  he  is  in  his  historical 
information,  to  represent  ^latthew,  or  the  "some  other 
who  compiled  the  sermon,"  as  saying  that  these  words 
were  uttered  when  "Jesus  first  opened  his  mouth  in 
public  teaching."  "The  devout  disciple  Matthew,  or 
some  other  who  compiled  the  great  sermon,"  had  just 
said,  at  the  close  of  the  immediately  preceding  sentence, 
that  the  great  multitudes  who  heard  this  sermon  had 
been  drawn  together  by  previous  teaching  and  healing 
(4:23-25)  ;  yet  this  preacher  has  it  that  this  "beautiful 
tradition"  represents  the  first  Beatitude  as  the  first  pub- 
lic utterance  of  Jesus  as  a  teacher!  What  is  the  matter 
with  the  preacher?  Has  he  studied  the  criticism  of  this 
Gospel  so  much  as  not  to  become  acquainted  with  its 
contents?    This  would  be  at  least  a  charitable  conclusion. 


86  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Notice  yet  again  the  very  "different  effect  this  ser- 
mon would  have  produced"  if  it  had  begun  with  the 
saying,  "Except  your  righteousness  shall  exceed  the 
righteousness  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  in 
no  wise  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  But  where 
does  this  saying  occur?  Not,  indeed,  in  the  first  verse 
of  the  chapter,  but  in  the  twentieth,  with  sixteen  short 
verses  between  the  two.  If  then,  according  to  this 
preacher,  the  twentieth  verse  had  occupied  the  place  of 
the  third  verse  of  this  chapter,  and  vice  versa,  "what  a 
different  effect  would  have  been  produced" ! 

In  the  latter  passage  the  true  reading  of  the  first 
Beatitude  seems  to  come  to  the  preacher's  memory,  and 
we  have  the  following  luminous  remarks  about  the  Be- 
atitudes preserved   respectively  by   Matthew   and   Luke : 

In  taking  this  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  first  Beatitude,  we 
harmonize  the  two  extant  versions  of  it  in  Matthew  and  in  Luke. 
In  Matthew  we  have  a  Beatitude  of  the  poor  in  spirit;  in  Luke, 
more  generally  of  the  oppressed  poor,  as  distinguished  from  the 
oppressing  rich.  In  another  point,  however,  we  are  forced  to 
agree  with  Matthew  against  Luke.  The  latter  states  that  Jesus 
"lifted  up  his  eyes  on  his  disciples  and  said.  Blessed  are  ye 
poor;"  the  former,  that  he  broadly  asserted  the  blessedness  of 
ail  who  were  poor  in  spirit.  It  is  clear  that  Matthew's  version 
must  be  the  most  correct. 

From  this  we  gather  that  in  quoting  the  first  Beati- 
tude at  the  beginning  he  was  not  aiming  to  quote  what 
Matthew  said,  but  what  he  ought  to  have  said,  in  order 
to  give  the  meaning  correctly.  In  order  to  reconcile  the 
two  writers,  we  must  take  away  the  words  "in  spirit" 
from  Matthew.  But  while  Matthew  was  wrong  in  add- 
ing this  expression,  Luke  was  wrong  in  making  Jesus 
say  ''ye  poor."  By  such  remarks  as  these  the  preacher 
made  his  audience  see  that  he  knows  much  better  than 
Matthew   or   Luke   either   what   Jesus   did    say   on    any 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  87 

occasion,  so  that  he  can  stand  between  the  two,  and, 
slapping  first  one  and  then  the  other  in  the  face,  let  us 
less  unfortunate  mortals  know  what  were  the  actual 
words  of  our  Lord.  I  wonder  if  the  good  people  in 
that  audience  did  not  clap  their  hands,  and  thank  God 
that  another  "Daniel  has  come  to  judgment"? 

In  a  passage  farther  on,  our  preacher  shows  that  the 
"beautiful  tradition,"  that  the  Beatitude  in  question  was 
uttered  when  Jesus  first  opened  his  mouth  in  public 
teaching,  is  nothing  more  than  a  tradition,  and  an  incor- 
rect one  at  that.  Speaking  of  the  Beatitudes  as  a  whole, 
he  says : 

If  we  ask  when  they  were  uttered,  we  can  but  confess  our 
ignorance ;  but  when  we  read  in  Matt.  4 :  2;^,  which  is  sup- 
ported by  Mark  i  :  39,  that  "Jesus  went  about  all  Galilee  teach- 
ing in  their  synagogues,  and  preaching  the  good  tidings  of  the 
kingdom,"  we  are  led  to  suppose  that  the  Beatitudes  were  first 
delivered  in  a  synagogue,  and  that  it  was  after  reading  some 
passage  of  the  prophets  that  men  wondered  at  the  gracious 
words  that  proceeded  out  of  his  mouth. 

A  critic  of  the  school  to  which  this  preacher  belongs 
can  never  be  certain  of  a  thing,  if  it  is  asserted  by  an 
apostle,  unless  it  be  something  which  he  can  use  to  the 
disadvantage  of  him  who  asserts  it.  Here  our  great 
scholar  acknowledges  his  ignorance  as  to  when  Jesus 
first  uttered  the  Beatitudes,  although  Matthew  tells  him 
plainly  when  and  where.  But  though  he  is  thus  con- 
fessedly ignorant,  he  is  able  to  correct  Matthew,  and  to 
assert  that  it  is  much  more  likely  to  have  been  in  a 
synagogue  than  on  a  mountain,  where  ^Matthew  says 
it  was. 

This  great  light  of  the  nineteenth  century  is  not  only 
an  expert  in  correcting  the  mistakes  of  the  apostles,  but 
he  is  equally  at  home  in  dealing  with  the  prophets.  He 
knows  the  meaning  of  all  their  ])redictions.     He  knows, 


88  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

better  than  the  apostles  did,  who  wrote  them,  and  he 
can  tell  us  which  of  them  failed  to  be  fulfilled.  He  has 
even  discovered  that  a  large  part  of  the  mourning 
referred  to  in  the  Beatitude,  ''Blessed  are  they  that 
mourn,"  was  that  of  pious  Jews  who  mourned  over  the 
non-fulfillment  of  some  grand  predictions  of  "the  Sec- 
ond Isaiah."     Hear  him : 

This  great  prophetic  writer,  the  Second  Tsaiah,  had  said  that 
the  Jews  were  about  to  be  conducted  in  triumph  to  Jerusalem, 
and  that  Jehovah,  Israel's  King,  would  then  visibly  reassume 
his  royalty,  governing  Israel  and  the  world  from  his  capital, 
Jerusalem.  On  the  face  of  them,  he  makes  not  always  quite 
consistent  declarations.  Sometimes  he  leads  us  to  think  that 
the  Persian  king,  Cyrus,  would,  after  being  gently  converted 
to  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  reign  as  Jehovah's  viceroy  over  the 
nations  of  the  world  except  Israel ;  these  nations  being  forced 
by  conquest  to  accept  the  true  religion.  At  other  times  he  gives 
us  sublime  and  truly  Christian  descriptions  of  a  personage  called 
"The  Servant  of  the  Lord,"  who  is  an  imaginary  embodiment  of 
the  ideal  of  Israel,  or,  we  might  almost  say,  of  the  true  Israel, 
and  who  is  represented  as  devoting  his  life  to  missionary  labors 
among  the  Gentiles.  Of  all  these  promises  only  one  was  in  any 
strict  sense  realized — the  return  of  the  Jews,  or  a  part  of  them, 
to  Judah — and  we  can  not  doubt  that  to  the  most  spiritually 
minded  Jews  in  our  Lord's  time  the  non-fulfillment  of  the 
promise  of  the  conversion  of  the  nations  through  Jewish  instru- 
mentality must  have  been  the  source  of  a  pure  and  noble  sorrow. 
They  mourned  not  only  because  Judea  was  still  suffering, God's 
judgment  upon  sin,  but  because  the  nations  beyond  were  still 
ignorant  of  the  true  God.  They  were  humble  and  broken- 
hearted, not  so  much  because  Roman  legions  trod  Jewish  soil, 
as  because  the  world  at  large  did  not  yet  own  the  divine  King. 

This  "Second  Isaiah"  is  commonly  extolled  by  the 
critics  as  the  greatest  of  all  the  prophets.  He  is  some- 
times called  "The  Great  Unknov/n."  Yet  with  this 
preacher,  preaching  to  sinners  in  London,  whom  he 
urges  in  the  latter  part  of  his  sermon  to  become  disciples 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  89 

of  Christ,  the  Second  Isaiah  "makes  not  ahvays  quite 
consistent  declarations ;"  he  made  predictions  that  were 
not  fulfilled;  and  this  failure  of  fulfillment  was  a  source 
of  such  sorrow  to  his  countrymen  of  a  later  generation, 
that  Jesus  took  special  pains  to  try  to  comfort  them. 
And  let  us  not  fail  to  take  in  that  new  revelation  at  the 
close  of  the  extract  just  given,  that  the  Jews  of  the 
Saviour's  time — that  is,  the  spiritually  minded  among 
them — were  ''humble  and  broken-hearted,  not  so  much 
because  Roman  legions  trod  Jewish  soil,  as  because  the 
world  at  large  did  not  yet  own  the  divine  King."  Poor 
fellows !  How  much  more  sympathetic  they  were  in  con- 
templating the  sad  condition  of  the  Gentiles  than  modern 
Christians  are !  How  much  more  so  than  the  most  zeal- 
ous missionaries  of  our  day,  for  where  are  the  Christians 
of  to-day  who  are  "humble  and  broken-hearted,  because 
the  world  at  large  has  not  yet  owned  the  divine  King"  ? 
Yes,  those  spiritually  minded  Jews  were  ahead  of  the 
early  Christians,  including  the  apostles,  in  sympathy  for 
the  poor  Gentiles,  for  do  not  these  same  critics  tell  us 
with  one  voice  that  the  original  twelve  and  the  church 
in  Jerusalem  regarded  salvation  in  Christ  as  intended 
for  the  Jews  alone ;  and  that  they  cared  nothing  at  all 
for  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles?  Do  they  not  tell  us 
that  Paul  taught  the  "universalism"  of  the  gospel  in 
opposition  to  the  "particularism"  taught  by  Peter  and 
James  ? 

In  conclusion,  I  have  this  to  say:  If  any  church  wants 
a  preacher  to  edify  it  after  the  manner  of  the  higher 
critics  of  the  most  approved  pattern,  they  can  judge  by 
this  sermon  how  such  preachers  would  suit  them ;  and 
then  they  can  hunt  around  for  the  preacher.  If  a  suf- 
ficient salary  is  ofifered,  the  man  can  doubtless  be  found. 


90  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

[Jan.  27,  1894.] 
THE    WISDOM    OF    THE    WISE. 

Under  this  heading  I  propose  from  time  to  time  to 
present  some  of  the  wise  sayings  of  the  wise  men  who 
throw  discredit  on  the  Bible.  They  will  illustrate  the 
words  quoted  by  Paul  from  the  prophet,  saying:  'T  will 
destroy  the  wisdom  of  the  wise."  I  shall  follow  no 
particular  order  in  presenting  them,  but  will  take  them 
as  they  occur  to  me,  and  as  they  suit  the  space  which 
can  be  allotted  to  them. 

Kuenen,  in  his  master  work,  "The  Religion  of"  Is- 
rael," insists  that  the  host  of  Israel  which  marched  out 
of  Egypt  could  not  have  numbered  six  hundred  thou- 
sand men  ;  and  one  proof  is  that  this  number  could  not 
have  lived  in  the  wilderness.  He  puts  the  number  down 
to  sixty  or  seventy  thousand,  and  the  whole  multitude, 
men,  women  and  children,  to  about  three  hundred  thou- 
sand (Vol.  I.,  p.  126).  He  seems  to  think  that  this 
number  could  have  subsisted  in  the  wilderness  without 
miraculous  feeding.  He  forgets  that  there  are  now  only 
about  six  hundred  Bedawin  in  that  peninsula,  and  that 
they  would  starve  or  be  compelled  to  leave  the  country, 
were  it  not  for  the  scanty  income  which  they  derive 
from  escorting  the  tourists  who  annually  visit  Mount 
Sinai.  His  sixty  thousand,  then,  would  have  starved 
there,  just  as  certainly  as  would  the  six  hundred  thou- 
sand of  Moses.  He  ought  to  have  cut  them  down  to 
three  or  four  hundred,  and  have  made  them  take  with 
them  a  caravan  of  camels  loaded  with  provisions,  as 
modern  tourists  do ;  then  sensible  people  might  have 
taken  his  estimate  to  be  plausible. 

But  the  wisdom  of  this  wise  man  is  more  strikingly 
displayed  when  he  comes  to  discuss  the  Biblical  account 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  91 

as  to  how  the  three  hundred  thousand  (Hd  actually  sub- 
sist in  the  wilderness.  He  says :  "The  forty  years'  rain 
of  manna,  and  the  miracles  connected  with  it,  owe  their 
origin  to  the  real  manna,  which  drops  from  the  tarfa- 
shrub  in  the  Sinaitic  desert ;  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  fire 
to  the  fire  which  is  carried  in  front  of  the  caravan  to 
show  the  way"  (\'ol.  L,  p.  130,  note).  I  suppose  that 
the  most  of  my  readers  have  seen  this  so-called  manna, 
for  it  can  be  bought  in  the  drug  store  ;  and  if  they  have 
never  eaten  any  of  it,  I  propose  that  they  buy  a  nickel's 
worth  and  try  it.  They  can  then  judge  how  long  they 
could  live  and  keep  fat  on  it  Vv^ithout  a  miracle.  And 
then  let  us  remember  that  it  was  not  a  half-dozen  per- 
sons, but  a  host  of  three  hundred  thousand,  who,  accord- 
ing to  this  wise  man  of  Holland,  lived  on  the  quantity 
which  is  found  on  the  tarfa-shrub  in  the  Sinaitic  penin- 
sula. To  bring  the  conception  nearer  home,  just  imagine 
a  hundred  or  more  men,  women  and  children  turned 
loose  in  an  old  peach  orchard  to  live  on  the  gum  of  the 
old  peach-trees ;  then  stretch  the  old  orchard  through 
the  valleys  of  the  mountainous  peninsula,  and  turn  three 
hundred  thousand  people  out  there  to  live  on  the  gum, 
and  you  have  the  idea.  I  wonder  why  those  six  hundred 
ragged  and  half -starved  Bedawin  do  not  live  on  the 
manna.  Somebody  ought  to  send  Dr.  Kuenen  over  there 
to  teach  the  poor  fellows  that  it  is  angels'  food. 

But  what  about  the  pillar  of  cloud  by  day  and  fire 
by  night?  This  is  a  big  tale,  it  seems,  which  had  no 
other  origin  than  the  fire  that  was  carried  before  the 
caravan  to  show  the  way.  Well,  if  such  a  fire  was  car- 
ried before  a  caravan  of  three  hundred  thousand  people, 
a  larger  force  than  General  Grant  ever  led,  it  must  have 
been  a  prodigious  job  to  carry  it  and  keep  it  burning. 
I  am  glad  that  I  was  not  one  of  the  men  who  had  to 


92  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

carry  it  in  that  hot  cHmate.  Supposing,  however,  that 
they  had  a  few  salamander  men  to  carry  it,  and  plenty 
of  fuel  to  keep  it  burning,  this  might  be  a  good  arrange- 
ment for  the  night ;  but  I  find  that  we  are  losing  that 
pillar  of  cloud  by  day.  Dr.  Kuenen  will  have  to  write 
another  foot-note,  and  tell  us  about  that.  He  forgot  it 
while  he  was  following  that  big  fire. 

Let  no  reader  who  is  unfamiliar  with  great  names, 
imagine  that  this  Dr.  Kuenen  is  some  simpleton ;  for, 
next  to  Wellhausen,  he  stands  at  the  head  of  the  higher 
critics  of  the  new  school  in  Europe.  I  have  marked 
several  other  specimens  of  his  great  wisdom,  and  I  hope 
to  refresh  the  reader  with  some  of  them  now  and  then. 


[Nov.  24,  1894.] 

THE    WISDOM    OF    THE    WISE. 

Dr.  Kuenen  was  a  very  learned,  and  a  very  accurate, 
man.  He  could  extract  from  almost  any  narrative  all 
the  meaning  that  was  in  it,  and  he  could  clearly  distin- 
guish the  false  from  the  true ;  but  there  is  one  short 
narrative  in  the  Bible,  a  narrative  which  Sunday-school 
pupils  often  understand  very  well,  which  was  a  com- 
plete puzzle  to  him.  After  mentioning  the  crossing  of 
the  Red  Sea,  he  says : 

What  actually  took  place  there  we  do  not  know.  The  only- 
thing  certain  is  that  the  Israelites  remembered  that  they  had 
here  escaped  a  great  danger,  which  threatened  them  from  the 
side  of  the  Egyptians.  Even  in  early  times  their  rescue  was 
considered  and  celebrated  as  an  act  of  Jahveh.  The  account 
which  we  possess  in  Exodus  of  their  passage  may  have  existed 
from  a.s  early  as  the  eighth  century  B.  C.  It  is  undoubtedly 
founded  on  fact.  But  it  is  very  difficult  to  distinguish  the  actual 
circumstances  of  the  occurrence  from  poetical  embellishments. 
We  will  not   risk  the  attempt.     For  our  purpose  it  is   enough 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  93 

to  know  that  the  deHveraiice  of  the  children  of  Israel  was  com- 
pleted when  the  Red  Sea  divided  them  from  their  pursuers. — 
The  Religion  of  Israel,  i  :  126. 

The  way  in  which  this  learned  higher  critic  gives  up 
this  puzzle  reminds  me  of  a  conundrum  said  to  have 
been  propounded  to  a  clown  by  a  ringmaster.  The 
conundrum  was  this:  "Noah  had  three  sons,  Shem.  Ham 
and  Japheth.  Now,  who  was  Japheth's  father?"  The 
clown  studied  on  it  a  moment,  and  called  for  a  repetition. 
He  called  for  it  a  third  time,  and  then  said,  'T  give  it 
up."  The  story  of  crossing  the  Red  Sea  is  about  as 
simple,  but  the  great  critic  gives  it  up.  There  are  none 
so  blind  as  those  who  will  not  see.  The  scribes  and 
Pharisees  could  not  understand  the  simplest  of  the  para- 
bles of  Jesus,  and  the  reason  is  given  in  these  memorable 
words : 

"The  people's  heart  waxed  gross. 
And  their  ears  were  dull  of  hearing. 
And  their  eyes  have  they  closed ; 
Lest  haply  they  should  perceive  with  their  eyes, 
And  hear  with  their  ears. 
And  understand  with  their  heart, 
And  should  turn  again. 
And  I  should  heal  them." 

After  all.  Dr.  Kuenen  deserves  some  credit  for  being 
an  agnostic  in  regard  to  the  Red  Sea  crossing.  I  mean 
credit  as  compared  with  his  fellow-critics  ;  for  by  con- 
fession, quoted  above,  he  shows  himself  incapable  of 
swallowing  the  silly  interpretation  which  has  satisfied 
them.  He  could  not  consent  to  say  with  them  that 
Israel,  when  camped  at  the  head  of  the  sea  and  pursued 
by  Pharaoh,  did  not  have  sense  enough  to  make  the 
march  of  three  or  four  miles  which  would  have  led  them 
around  it,  instead  of  waiting  for  the  water  to  get  out  of 
their   way.      Neither   could   he   accept   the   equally    silly 


94  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

notion  that  the  wind  and  tide  emptied  the  water  just  in 
front  of  Israel,  and  that  when  the  Egyptians  followed, 
a  change  of  the  wind  and  the  tide  overwhelmed  the  latter 
so  that  none  of  them  escaped.  They  tell  us  that  Napo- 
leon had  a  similar  experience  once,  during  the  Egyptian 
campaign,  when  he  and  a  few  of  his  officers,  having 
gone  to  see  the  Springs  of  Moses,  crossed  on  their 
return  where  Israel  did,  but  came  near  being  drowned 
by  the  inflowing  tide.  But  then,  Napoleon  and  his  men 
escaped — they  were  only  a  little  scared.  I  suppose  that 
the  French  are  wiser  in  escaping  from  water  than  the 
Egyptians  were.  Kuenen,  of  course,  had  read  all  that 
his  brother  critics  had  said  in  support  of  this  and  other 
attempts  to  explain  away  the  miracle,  and  he  could 
accept  none  of  them.  He  had  too  much  sense.  Not 
having,  however,  enough  grace  to  accept  the  truth,  and 
being  unwilling  to  accept  a  subterfuge,  he  fell  upon  the 
clown's  device,  and  gave  it  up. 

[March  2.   1895. 1 

A   TEST    CASE   OF    LITERARY   CRITICISM. 

Prof.  E.  J.  Wolf,  of  Gettysburg  Theological  Semi- 
nary, calls  attention,  in  a  recent  number  of  the  Inde- 
pendent, to  a  case  of  literary  criticism  which  illustrates 
very  aptly  the  reliability  of  such  criticism  when  applied 
to  the  books  of  the  Bible.  When  President  Cleveland's 
message  on  Hawaiian  affairs  was  published,  the  question 
was  raised,  whether  it  was  written  by  him,  or  by  his 
Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Gresham.  Mr.  McPherson, 
editor  of  the  Gettysburg  Star  and  Sentinel,  of  whom 
Professor  Wolf  says,  ''There  is  probably  no  man  in  this 
country  more  conversant  with  political  writers  and 
speakers,  and,  therefore,  more  competent  to  pronounce 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  95 

judgment  on  the  authorship  or  literary  quaHty  of  a  pub- 
lic document,"  passed  this  judgment  in  his  paper:  "As 
a  matter  of  style  it  is  a  great  improvement  on  any  other 
of  Mr.  Cleveland's  messages,  having  evidently  been  pre- 
pared by  Mr.  Secretary  Gresham." 

On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Dana,  of  the  Xew  York  Sun, 
*'whose  primacy  in  literature,"  says  the  Professor,  "is 
challenged  only  by  his  rank  as  a  political  writer  and 
critic,  and  whose  capacity  to  judge  of  the  literary  author- 
ship of  an  official  paper  will  be  questioned  by  no  Ameri- 
can," bluntly  declares :  "Five-sixths  of  the  message  is  a 
restatement  in  ]\Ir.  Cleveland's  c-Kni  language  of  the 
argument  for  the  policy  of  infamy." 

On  this  conflict  of  opinion  between  two  experts,  the 
Professor  comments  as  follows: 

This  flat  contradiction  of  each  other  by  a  brace  of  expert 
critics  is  something  of  a  stunner  to  the  simple  and  plain  people 
who  have  been  taught  by  the  higher  critics  that  even  in  the  writ- 
ings which  were  published  some  two  or  three  thousand  years 
since  in  a  language  now  dead  it  is  perfectly  easy  to  tell  what 
part  Moses  wrote,  and  what  part  some  redactor  of  Moses  ; 
what  Fsalm  is  from  David,  and  which  ones  from  the  time  of 
Ezra:  how  much  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah  was  written  by  Isaiah, 
and  where  the  style  changes  so  unmistakably  that  obviously 
another  Isaiah  must  be  the  author  of  the  later  chapters.  And, 
like  Messrs.  McPherson  and  Dana,  they  are  all  cocksure  about 
it.  There  can  be  no  mistake.  Xo  one  having  the  remotest 
title  to  scholarship  would  dare  to  dispute  these  conclusions  of 
higher  criticism. 


[Apr.  6.  1895.1 

WHAT    DID    MOSES    DO:^ 

The  critics  who  deny  to  Moses  the  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch  have  a  puzzle  on  hand  when  they  attempt, 
as  they  sometimes  do,  to  tell  us  something  that  Moses 


96  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

actually  did.  In  the  March  number  of  the  Biblical 
World,  Professor  Harper  has  a  long  editorial  on  the 
subject,  in  which  he  sails  round  and  round,  like  a  bird 
that  knows  not  where  or  when  to  alight ;  but  at  last  he 
comes  down  with  the  following  statement : 

But,  it  is  asked,  how  much  of  this  did  Moses  himself  actually 
accomplish?  We  answer:  (i)  He  formulated  the  Decalogue,  and 
under  inspiration  from  heaven  impressed  upon  it  ideas  which 
never  had  before  been  formulated ;  namely,  the  sin  of  idolatry 
and  the  sin  which  exists  in  wrong  purpose  or  intent.  (2)  He 
formulated  the  covenant  code  (Ex.  21-23),  the  constitution  of 
the  hexateuchal  legislation,  a  code  which  contains  in  germ  every 
enactment  of  the  Hexateuch.  (3)  He,  without  doubt,  passed 
judgment  on  the  many  early  stories  handed  down  by  tradition, 
selecting  those  in  connection  with  which  great  truths  should  be 
taught,  purifying  them  from  the  dross  which  the  ages  had  con- 
nected with  them,  and  handing  them  down  for  the  people, 
and  through  the  people,  until  that  later  time  when  they  assumed 
their  present  literary  form.  (4)  He  furnished  the  foundation 
upon  which  should  be  built  not  merely  («)  the  Mosaic  system 
of  legislation,  but  {h)  the  monarchical  system  which  was  later 
developed,  and  (r)  the  prophetic  system  of  which  he  was  at  the 
same  time  the  beginning  and  the  highest  representative. 

I  should  like  to  know  how  Professor  Harper  knows 
all  this.  Outside  the  statements  of  the  Pentateuch,  and 
of  the  later  books  of  the  Bible,  he  has  not  a  word  of 
authority  on  the  subject,  and  the  bulk  of  these  state- 
ments he  unceremoniously  rejects.  Not  only  so,  but  in 
the  words  which  I  have  just  quoted  from  him  he  mis- 
represents his  only  source  of  information.  He  says, 
first,  that  Moses  "formulated  the  Decalogue,"  when  the 
only  authority  on  which  any  man  can  now  affirm  that 
Moses  ever  saw  the  Decalogue,  declares  that  he  received 
it  from  God,  written  on  tables  of  stone,  already  formu- 
lated. Second,  he  says  in  the  same  sentence,  that  Moses 
impressed   on    the   Decalogue    "ideas    which    had    never 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  97 

before  been  formulated,"  when,  if  this  only  authority 
can  be  believed,  he  impressed  nothing  at  all  on  the  Deca- 
logue, but  preserved  it  as  God  gave  it  to  him.  In  the 
third  place,  he  says  that  Moses  "formulated  the  covenant 
code  (Ex.  21-23),"  when  the  only  possible  source  of 
information  declares  that  this  also  was  given  by  direct 
revelation  from  God,  and  that  all  he  did  was  to  write  it 
in  a  book,  read  it  to  the  people,  and  ratify  it  as  law  by 
the  sprinkling  of  blood.  Fourth,  he  says  that  Moses, 
''without  doubt," -passed  judgment  on  many  early  stories 
which  had  been  handed  down  by  tradition,  referring, 
evidently,  to  such  stories  as  make  up  the  Book  of  Gen- 
esis. But  how  does  he  know  that  IMoses  ever  heard  of 
these  stories  ?  He  denies  that  Aloses  wrote  them  :  he 
affirms  that  they  were  written  about  seven  hundred  years 
after  the  death  of  Closes  :  then,  what  gives  him  the  right 
to  say  that  Moses  ever  had  anything  to  do  with  them  ? 
Why  all  this  trimming  between  belief  and  unbelief?  If 
the  record  respecting  Moses  in  the  Pentateuch  is  not 
to  be  believed,  then  it  is  far  more  sensible  to  unite  with 
the  radicals  in  pronouncing  Moses  a  mythical  character, 
than  to  pretend  that  we  know  something  about  him  in 
the  same  breath  in  which  we  reject  our  only  source  of 
information.  This  last  is  what  Professor  Harper,  and 
those  w^hom  he  has  taken  as  guides  in  criticism,  are  con- 
stantly doing.  It  is  the  work  of  a  trimmer,  and  not  that 
of  a  critic. 


[May  II,  1895.] 

A   CRITICAL    PARADOX. 

One  of  the  most  clear-headed  thinkers  and  most  per- 
spicuous writers  among  the  English  school  of  advanced 
critics   is   Prof.    Herbert    Edward   Ryle,   of   Cambridge 


98  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

University.  In  his  book  on  "The  Early  Narratives  of 
Genesis,"  he  takes  about  the  same  position  that  Pro- 
fessor Harper  set  forth  more  than  a  year  ago  in  his 
Chicago  lectures;  but  he  handled  the  subject  with  much 
more  care,  and  with  fewer  absurdities.  I  call  attention 
now,  however,  t^  a  passage  which  he  himself  admits  to 
be  paradoxical,  but  which  expresses  a  thought  that  has 
echoed  and  re-echoed  among  this  class  of  critics: 

Paradoxical  as  it  may  sound,  faith  would,  I  believe,  be  more 
genuinely  staggered  by  any  perfectly  exact  agreement  in  Genesis 
with  the  wonderful  discoveries  of  modern  science  than  it  ever 
has  been,  or  is  ever  likely  to  be,  by  the  familiar  contradictions 
with  science  that  are  to  be  expected  in  a  literature  so  ancient, 
and  are  to  be  found  in  this  chapter  (Gen.  i)  according  to  any 
literal  interpretation. 

The  thought  here  expressed  amounts  about  to  this — 
that  faith,  though  it  has  been  staggered  by  the  contra- 
dictions of  science  found  in  this  chapter,  would  have 
been  much  more  staggered  if  the  contradictions  had  been 
avoided  and  the  truth  had  been  told.  Well  might  he  say 
that  this  sounds  paradoxical.  It  is  not  only  paradoxical, 
but  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  absurd.  It  is  the  same 
as  to  say  that  faith  is  staggered  by  finding  certain  pas- 
sages in  the  Scripture  false  to  facts,  but  it  would  be 
still  more  staggered  by  finding  the  same  passages  true 
to  facts.  But  so  reason  all  of  those  critics,  who,  not 
being  willing  with  their  German  masters  to  deny  abso- 
lutely the  divine  element  in  the  Bible,  try  to  trim  between 
this  position  and  that  of  orthodox  believers.  Contradic- 
tions and  errors  of  history,  which  they  affect  to  find  in 
vast  numbers  in  the  sacred  record,  make  the  book  all  the 
more  credible  and  precious  in  their  estimation.  This  is 
so  inconsistent  with  rational  thought  that  I  do  not  be- 
lieve it.     I  believe  that  in  so  saying  they  are  practicing 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  99 

self-deception  ;  and  that  if  they  would  analyze  their  feel- 
ings as  minutely  as  they  try  to  analyze  the  Pentateuch, 
they  would  find  they  are  saying  what  they  try  to  feel, 
and  not  what  they  really  do  feel. 

While  speaking  of  Professor  Ryle's  book,  I  may 
mention  another  passage  which  stands  in  striking  con- 
trast with  one  corresponding  to  it  in  Professor  Harper's 
lectures.  The  latter  says  of  the  style  of  the  first  chapter 
of  Genesis,  that  it  is  "systematic  ;"  "chronological  and 
statistical ;"  "minute,  precise,  scientific ;"  "rigid,  stereo- 
typed :"  "verbose  and  repetitious  ;"  "generic  and  not  par- 
ticular." What  an  array  of  epithets  to  describe  the  style 
of  one  short  chapter!  Xow  listen  to  the  thoroughly 
trained  and  sober-minded  English  scholar : 

The  matchless  introduction  to  the  whole  history  (1:1-2:4) 
is  taken  in  all  probability  from  the  priestly  writings,  having  been 
either  composed  by  the  priestly  narrator,  or  extracted  by  him 
and  edited  from  the  ancient  traditions  of  which  the  priestly 
guild  were  the  recognized  keepers.  Evidence  of  this  is  obtained 
from  characteristic  words  and  phrases,  and  from  the  smooth, 
orderly  and  somewhat  redundant  style   (pp.  2.  3). 

The  contrast  is  obvious  enough.  The  reader  may 
account  for  it  as  he  will. 


[June  22,  1895.] 

"THE    HIGHER    CRITICS    CRITICIZED/' 

This  is  the  title,  in  its  briefest  form,  of  a  volume  just 
published  by  H.  L.  Hastings,  the  well-known  editor  of 
The  Christian,  Boston.  The  body  of  the  work  is  a 
review  of  Kuenen's  "Religion  of  Israel,"  and  a  "Study 
of  the  Pentateuch."  with  reference  to  the  single  ques- 
tion :  Is  the  Pentateuch  as  old  as  the  time  of  Moses?  by 
Rufus    P.    Stebbins,   late  president  of    Meadville   Theo- 


100  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

logical  Seminary.  This  is  preceded  by  three  preliminary 
essays  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Hastings,  occupying  eighty- 
four  pages ;  and  it  is  followed  by  another  from  the  same 
author  under  the  title,  "The  Wonderful  Law,"  covering 
ii8  pages. 

I  have  had  time  to  examine  only  the  three  prelimi- 
nary essays  ;  but  I  can  freely  say  that  these  alone  make 
the  book  of  great  value.  If  the  other  parts  are  equal 
to  it,  the  whole  volume  must  be  one  of  the  best  of  its 
size  that  has  been  published  on  higher  criticism. 

H.  L.  Hastings  is  well  known  both  in  this  country 
and  in  Great  Britain,  as  one  of  the  most  aggressive  and 
witty  writers  on  subjects  of  this  kind  now  living.  His 
part  in  this  volume,  like  the  various  tracts  which  he  has 
published  and  circulated  very  extensively,  are  full  of 
happy  hits,  telling  illustrations  and  withering  sarcasm. 
He  is  well  posted  on  the  topics  which  he  touches,  so 
that  he  knows  the  weak  points  in  the  armor  of  his  adver- 
saries, and  the  sharp  point  of  his  lance  never  misses  its 
aim.  In  this  respect  he  differs  from  some  who  have 
undertaken  to  write  against  destructive  criticism  with 
but  a  dim  conception  as  to  what  it  is. 

I  can  not  give  so  correct  a  conception  of  his  part  of 
this  book  by  my  own  words,  as  by  quoting  from  it  some 
specimen  passages.  If  the  destructive  critics  were  really 
philanthropists,  seeking  to  dethrone  superstition,  and  to 
give  men  enlightened  views  respecting  sacred  books 
which  they  are  likely  to  reverence  to  their  own  injury, 
it  would  seem  that  they  should  begin  their  work  where 
superstition  is  the  most  extreme,  and  the  people  most 
need  the  enlightening  influence  of  criticism.  Especially 
should  they  begin  with  the  books  which  are  leading 
astray  the  largest  portion  of  the  human  race.  But  in- 
stead of  this  course,  which  real  philanthropy  would  die- 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  lor 

tate,  they  devote  all  of  their  critical  powers  to  the  de- 
struction of  faith  in  just  otic  little  book,  which  is  held 
in  esteem  by  only  a  small  portion  of  the  race,  and  which 
is  certainly  doing  little  harm  to  those  who  believe  in  it. 
Our  author  deals  with  this  question  in  the  following 
passage,  wiiich,  besides  setting  forth  the  point  in  ques- 
tion, contains  so  much  valuable  information  as  to  justify 
the  space  it  will  occupy : 

For  instance,  they  might  examine  the  Rig  Veda,  the  founda- 
tion of  Brahminism,  containing  1,028  hymns,  averaging  ten 
stanzas  each.  They  might  extend  their  examination  to  the  code 
of  Mann,  comprised  in  some  twenty  big  law-books,  and  dating 
back  to  B.  C.  400  or  500.  They  might  investigate  the  story  of 
Ramayana,  that  most  sacred  poem  of  twenty-four  thousand 
verses,  of  which  it  is  said  that  whoever  reads  it  or  hears  it  will 
be  freed  from  all  sin.  They  might  examine  the  Alaha-Charata, 
a  poem  of  220.C00  lines,  or  seven  times  as  long  as  the  Iliad  and 
Odyssey  combined,  a  copy  of  it  filling  eight  good-sized  volumes. 
Or  they  might  turn,  for  a  change,  to  the  Upanishads,  "the  kernel 
of  the  V'edas,"  a  series  of  mystical  Hindu  books  "that  no  man 
can  number;"  one  hundred  and  fifty  of  which  have  been  cata- 
logued, some  of  them  comprising  hundreds  of  pages.  Or  they 
might  study  the  Puranas,  or  Hindu  traditional  stories,  which 
date  from  A.  D.  600  down,  of  which  there  are  eighteen  Alaha 
or  principal  Puranas,  containing  1,600,000  lines,  and  other  minor 
Puranas,  containing  about  as  many  more.  There  were,  the 
Hindu  sages  tell  us,  a  billion  lines,  but  the  rest  were  mercifully 
kept  in  heaven  for  home  consumption. 

Having  examined  all  these  sacred  books,  which  are  held  by 
their  votaries  to  be  far  superior  to  anything  contained  in  the 
Hebrew  and  Christian  Scriptures,  they  might  turn  to  the  Chinese 
"Cyclopedia  of  Ancient  and  Modern  Literature"  with  its  6,109 
volumes,  including  eighteen  volumes  of  index  ;  and  having  spent 
six  or  eight  years  learning  the  ten  thousand  different  Chinese 
characters  in  common  use,  and  fifteen  or  twenty  years  in  learn- 
ing to  read  the  language  fluently,  they  might,  with  the  aid  of  the 
latest  "Imperial  Dictionary,"  containing  43.960  characters,  go 
through  these  publications,  and  subject  them  to  the  critical  tests 
of  the  higher  criticism.     When  this  was  done,  they  might  visit 


102  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

the  British  Museum  and  turn  their  attention  to  the  Jangyn,  or 
"Cyclopedia  of  Thibetan  Buddhism" — a  deUghtful  little  work 
comprised  in  225  volumes,  each  two  feet  long  and  six  inches 
thick.  These — which  are  held  to  be  fully  equal,  if  not  superior, 
to  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  by  some  of  the  skeptics  of  the  present 
day  who  know  little  of  either — would  furnish  a  very  inviting 
field  for  the  exercise  of  the  critical  faculty.  And  so  long  as  the 
vast  multitudes  of  China,  India  and  Thibet  accept  and  embrace 
these  wonderful  productions,  receiving  them  with  unquestioning 
faith,  it  would  certainly  seem  quite  proper  for  men  of  critical 
and  philanthropic  inclinations  to  investigate  the  pretensions  of 
these  remarkable  volumes,  and  inform  the  multitudes  who  accept 
them  as  to  their  authenticity,  inerrancy  and  authority. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  the  higher  critics  of  the  present 
day  have  hitherto  failed  to  thoroughly  explore  these  vast  and 
inviting  fields,  but  have  mainly  devoted  their  attention  to  the 
examination  and  discussion  of  sixty-six  little,  insignificant 
pamphlets,  the  sacred  literature  of  a  small,  isolated,  scattered 
and  persecuted  nation,  which  in  numbers  is  positively  insignifi- 
cant in  comparison  with  the  vast  multitudes  which  accept  the 
voluminous  sacred  books  we  have  mentioned.  And  it  is  a  some- 
what remarkable  fact  that  this  mighty  mass  of  Assyrian,  Baby- 
lonian, Chinese,  Hindu  and  Thibetan  sacred  literature  escapes 
criticism,  and  sometimes  receives  actual  commendation,  while 
the  only  documents  which  are  especially  criticized  and  whose 
errancy  and  mythical  and  unhistorical  character  is  pointed  out 
wath  unsparing  zeal,  are  the  records  and  laws  of  a  nation  which 
has  had  no  political  existence  for  nearly  two  thousand  years, 
which  does  not  control  or  possess  a  government,  a  city,  a  coun- 
try, or  even  an  island,  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  Why  this  book, 
of  all  others,  should  be  subjected  to  such  criticism  as  no  other 
book  has  ever  endured,  and  why  this  must  run  the  gauntlet  and 
receive  the  blows  of  friends  and  foes,  while  a  vast  mass  of 
sacred  and  Oriental  literature  passes  unnoticed  and  unscathed, 
is  a  phenomenon  which  baffles  the  comprehension  of  ordinary 
minds. 

But  we  have  to  deal  with  existing  facts ;  and  as  the  higher 
critics  of  the  present  day  do  not  trouble  themselves  to  explain. 
dissect  and  subject  to  microscopic  examination  the  sacred  writ- 
ings, traditions  and  theories  of  the  hundreds  of  millions  which 
compose  the  vast  majority  of  the  human  family;  and  as  they  do 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  103 

not  trouble  themselves  to  point  out  the  inconsistencies,  discrep- 
ancies and  errancies  of  those  books,  we  are  limited  to  a  much 
narrower  range  in  the  consideration  of  the  performances  of  the 
higher  critics,  whose  sphere  of  action  by  their  own  choice  is 
thus  circumscribed  and  limited.  .  .  , 

The  fact  that  these  critics  themselves  learned  all  they  know 
of  criticism  and  science,  in  schools,  colleges  and  universities 
-which  exist  only  under  the  light  and  influence  of  this  book,  and 
that  most  of  them  depend  for  the  leisure  they  enjoy,  the  libraries 
they  explore,  the  salaries  they  receive,  and  the  bread  that  they 
eat,  upon  foundations  and  institutions  endowed  and  loved  by 
men  who  reverenced  these  very  writings — might  itself  inspire  a 
degree  of  reverential  deference  for  such  venerable  documents ; 
and  the  fact  that  these  same,  critics,  if  born  in  any  land  where 
these  writings  are  unknown,  might  have  been  exposed  in  the 
fields,  flung  out  into  the  city  streets,  or  drowned  in  the  nearest 
horsepond  before  they  had  time  to  criticize  anything,  would 
seem  at  least  a  sufficient  reason  why  tl.e;y  would  undertake  with 
candor  and  respectful  consideration  the  examination  of  a  book 
to  the  influence  of  which  they  may  owe  their  \ery  existence,  or 
without  which  they  might  to-day  have  been  howling  and  whirl- 
ing in  some  circles  of  Dervishes,  or  sitting  besmeared  with  cow- 
dung  on  the  banks  of  the  Ganges,  ai.d  seeking  purification  and 
salvation  amid  the  obscenities  and  idolatries  of  heathen  lands 
^pp.  10-12). 

The  unsuspecting  eagerness  with  which  some  young 
men  swallow  the  conclusions  of  the  unfriendly  critics, 
as  young  birds  in  the  nest  swallow  the  worms  and  insects 
brought  by  the  mother  bird,  is  set  forth  in  the  following 
passage : 

There  are  signs  of  the  existence  of  a  mortal  fear  among 
some  of  the  younger  students  of  theology  that  in  the  rapid 
progress  of  scientific  criticism  they  may  be  left  behind.  They 
have  heard  about  Galileo  and  Copernicus,  the  decrees  and 
anathemas  of  councils,  bulls  against  comets,  and  similar  in- 
stances of  "religious"  bigotry,  until — forgetting  that  these  were 
simply  instances  of  old  science  disputing  the  claims  of  new 
science,  a  phenomenon  which  occurs  continually — they  have 
determined  that  nobody  shall  get  the  start  of  them  in  the  race 


104  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

of  modern  scientific  investigation.  Hence,  whatever  assertions 
or  demands  a  scientist  or  a  critic  may  make,  they  hasten  to 
accept  his  statements  and  obey  his  behests.  But  this  plan  of 
unconditional  surrender  may  be  carried  too  far ;  and  when  men 
believe  everything  that  scientific  men  have  guessed  at,  and 
admit  and  indorse  the  vagaries  of  scientific  visionaries,  before 
even  their  inventors  and  authors  are  satisfied  of  their  truth,  they 
remind  one  of  the  mythical  'coon  which  Davy  Crockett  treed, 
and  which,  on  learning  who  the  hunter  was,  said :  "Colonel,  you 
need  not  fire,  I  will  come  down."  It  is  not  best  for  men  to  part 
with  their  common  sense,  or  lose  their  balance  for  fear  of  being 
laughed  at  a  thousand  years  hence.  It  is  safe  to  hasten  slowly. 
Everything  that  can  be  shaken  will  be  shaken,  but  some  things 
that  can  not  be  shaken  will  remain ;  and  it  is  possible  that  there 
will  be,  after  all  the  whirlwinds  of  criticism,  some  things  which 
can  not  be  shaken ;  and  the  only  way  to  find  out  what  they  are 
is  to  wait  and  investigate,  and  see. 

A  story  is  told  of  a  lunatic  who,  finding  his  way  into  a 
crov/ded  church  and  grasping  one  of  the  pillars  supporting  the 
gallery,  said :  "I  am  going  to  pull  the  house  down !"  Timid 
women  screamed  and  shouted,  but  an  old  minister  calmed  the 
tumult  by  calling  out:  "Let  him  try!  let  him  try!"  So  there 
are  men  who  are  perfectly  willing  to  have  the  critics  try  their 
hands  at  the  Bible,  and  will  abide  the  results.  If  they  can  grind 
it  to  powder,  let  them  do  so;  if  they  grind  themselves  to  pow- 
der, it  will  only  be  another  instance  of  the  rat  gnawing  the  file 
(pp.  14,  15). 


[June  29,  1895.1 

CENTER    SHOTS    FROM    HASTINGS. 

I  think  that  all  who  read  the  extracts  published  last 
week  from  the  pen  of  Mr.  Hastings,  will  excuse  m& 
for  devoting-  my  space  once  more  to  some  of  his  spicy 
utterances  in  ''The  Higher  Critics  Criticized."  Speak- 
ing of  the  improbability  that  these  critics  will  be  able  to 
turn  the  masses  of  the  people  away  from  their  old-time 
faith  in  the  Bible,  he  says: 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  105 

Inertia  is  said  to  be  one  of  the  properties  of  matter.  It  is 
probably  also  one  of  the  properties  of  mind.  Large  bodies  move 
slowly,  and  sometimes  do  not  move  at  all.  The  best  of  men,  with 
the  best  of  causes  and  the  clearest  of  arguments,  have  some- 
times found  that  trying  to  change  the  minds  of  the  mass  of  a 
community  is  much  like  kicking  a  dead  elephant ;  and  men  who 
have  no  high-r  mission  than  to  pull  the  Bible  to  pieces,  may  find 
that  the  old  Book  will  stand  a  good  deal  of  rough  usage,  and 
not  be  much  the  worse  of  wear   (p.  18). 

The  parade  that  is  often  made  of  great  names,  and 
the  effort  to  scare  men  into  the  acceptance  of  critical 
theories  lest  they  should  be  left  behind  in  the  progress 
of  knowledge,  is  touched  up  in  the  manner   following: 

We  are  informed  that  all  the  learned  believe  this,  and  all  the 
critics  believe  that,  and  only  a  few  belated,  old-time  bigots  main- 
tain the  traditional  view.  And  yet  there  are  men  who  have 
S^iven  thought  and  study  to  these  questions  before  the  most  of 
the  higher  critics  were  born,  and  who  examined  these  difficulties 
while  some  of  these  learned  gentlemen  were  in  their  swaddling- 
clothes,  and  they  are  not  at  all  certain  that  wisdom  is  likely  to 
die  with  a  lot  of  German  Doctors,  who,  over  their  pipes  and 
beer,  discuss  and  everlastingly  settle  these  questions  beyond  the 
possibility  of  doubt  or  appeal,  and  make  their  conclusions  the 
end  of  the  law  regarding  this  matter  (p.  30). 

In  the  course  of  a  series  of  facts  which  show  that 
adverse  criticism  of  the  Bible  is  a  very  ancient  business, 
and  always  an  unsuccessful  one,  he  cites  two  prominent 
illustrations  in  the  following  words : 

Jehoiakim,  with  his  penknife,  was  as  free  a  critic  as  can 
easily  be  found  at  the  present  day ;  but  after  he  had  cut  the 
prophecy  of  Jeremiah  in  pieces  and  flung  it  in  the  fire,  it  came 
back  to  him  improved  and  amplified,  and  was  eventually  fulfilled 
(Jer.  36:23-32).  Zedekiah  was  an  astute  critic;  for  while  one 
prophet  declared  that  he  should  go  to  Babylon  and  die  there, 
and  another  informed  him  that  he  should  not  see  Babylon,  he, 
in  the  exercise  of  the  critical  faculty,  concluded  that  since  the 
prophets  disagreed  with  each  other,  it  was  safe  to  disbelieve 
Ihem   both.      But   when    Zedekiah    was   captured,    his    sons    slain 


io6  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

before  his  face,  his  eyes  put  out,  and  he  taken  to  Babylon  to 
die  there,  he  learned  that  a  man  might  go  to  Babylon  and  yet 
not  see  Babylon   (p.  31). 

It  is  well  known  to  men  who  are  acquainted  with  old- 
time  infidel  literature  that  a  very  large  part  of  the  his- 
torical and  literary  criticism  which  fills  up  modern  books 
on  the  subject  are  but  reproductions  from  the  old  infidels 
back  as  far  as  Celsus  and  Porphyry.  Even  those  who 
are  familiar  with  no  more  of  this  literature  than  Paine's 
*'Age  of  Reason"  have  observed  this.  Mr.  Hastings 
copies  from  the  Christian  Register  of  June,  1891,  on 
this  point: 

Thomas  Paine,  though  stigmatized  and  set  aside  as  an  infidel, 
finds  reincarnation  in  the  modern  Biblical  critic.  Paine  pointed 
out  the  contradictions  in  the  Bible,  which  render  impossible  the 
claim  that  it  is  an  infallible  book.  He  lived,  too,  far  in  advance 
of  his  age.  The  spirit  of  modern  scientific  criticism  had  not  yet 
come.  .  .  .  And  now  it  is  interesting  to  find  that  with  a  different 
spirit  and  with  different  tools,  and  bound  by  certain  traditions 
from  which  Paine  was  free,  the  professors  in  our  orthodox 
seminaries  are  doing  again  the  work  which  Paine  did,  and,  like 
him,  in  the  interest  of  honesty  and  truth   (p.  34). 

The  right  attitude  of  believers  to  these  critical  the- 
ories is  happily  set  forth  in  these  few  words : 

Truth  courts  investigation.  Candid  men  are  not  afraid  to 
consider  diflficulties  which  occur  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures ;  but 
when  such  difificulties  are  invented  or  exaggerated,  they  indicate 
the  errancy  of  the  critic  rather  than  that  of  the  book  he  criti- 
cizes. Intelligent,  careful,  honest  criticism  is  legitimate  and  wel- 
come;  but  carping  criticism  is  not  legitimate  criticism  (p.  35). 

On  the  same  page  he  shows  what  a  variety  of  char- 
acters is  represented  under  the  name  of  "Higher  Critic": 

The  phrase  "Higher  Critic"  is  an  indefinite  one,  as  indefinite 
as  the  term  "reptile,"  which  may  mean  either  a  crocodile,  a  mud- 
turtle,  a  lizard,  or  a  striped  snake ;  or  the  word  "animal,"  which 
may  be  a  mouse,  a  mammoth,  a  pussy  cat  or  a  bengal  tiger.     So 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  107 

there  are  critics  and  critics,  of  every  variety,  from  the  mildest 
grade  of  perplexed  doubters  to  the  outspoken  type  of  skeptics 
and  unbelievers.  Names  and  brands  signify  little  now;  every 
parcel  must  be  examined. 

Under  the  heading,  "J^sus  of  Xazareth  as  a  Higher 
Critic,  and  with  the  purpose  of  preparing  the  way  for 
his  testimony  respecting  Old  Testament  books,  our 
author  lays  aside,  for  argument's  sake,  the  claim  for 
Jesus  of  supernatural  knowledge,  and  considers  his 
opportunities  for  knowledge  on  the  stibjects  as  if  he 
were  a  mere  man.  In  setting  forth  these  opportunities, 
he  shows  a  freshness  and  originality  of  treatment  more 
striking  than  aught  else  in  his  part  of  the  volume.  I 
will  quote  only  some  of  his  more  striking  sayings: 

His  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  and  Syriac  tongues  was  not 
acquired  under  the  weekly  lessons  of  a  Gentile  professor  during 
a  three  years'  course  in  the  theological  seminary.  He  had  been 
brought  up  where  these  tongues  were  the  language  of  common 
life,  and  had  learned  them  frorn  his  mother's  lips.  He  was  not 
in  a  land  of  uncultured  barbarians :  there  were  schools  and 
books  arounu  him.  Foreign  languages  were  also  spoken,  so  that 
in  the  metropolis  it  was  deemed  necessary  by  the  authorities  to 
inform  passers-by  of  the  crime  of  an  executed  malefactor  by 
inscriptions  in  Hebrew.  Greek  and  Latin.  .  .  .  His  knowledge  of 
Jewish  antiquities  was  not  derived  from  books  and  libraries, 
but  from  personal  acquaintance  and  investigation.  His  acquaint- 
ance with  Jerusalem  and  Judcea  and  the  land  of  Israel  was 
acquired,  not  in  a  trip  of  two  or  three  weeks  with  a  dragoman 
to  ask  him  questions,  and  a  Turk  to  answer  them,  and  a  com- 
pany of  soldiers  to  keep  him  from  being  knocked  in  the  head 
and  robbed  by  wandering  Bedouins ;  but  he  has  probably  made 
a  hundred  journeys  to  and  from  the  Sacred  City.  .  .  .  He  had 
no  occasion  to  hunt  through  lexicons,  concordances  and  gram- 
mars to  master  the  mysteries  of  Hebrew  lexicography,  the  sub- 
tilties  of  Hebrew  grammar,  or  the  idiomatic  structure  of  the 
sacred  tongue.  There  were  men  all  around  him  who  were 
experts  in  all  these  departments.  .  .  .  Trained  under  such  cir- 
cumstances and  influences.  Jesus  of  Xazareth  had  great  oppor- 


io8  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

tunities  for  familiarizing  himself  with  the  Semitic  language  and 
literature.  He  was  familiar  with  the  Syriac  tongue,  the  lan- 
guage of  common  life.  .  .  .  He  had  undoubtedly  read  Hebrew 
at  an  age  when  most  of  the  higher  critics  did  not  know  the  tirst 
letter  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet.  He  could  stand  up  before  a 
public  assembly  of  Jews  and  read  a  Hebrew  manuscript  at  sight, 
and  pronounce  his  words  correctly.  How  many  higher  critics 
could  do  that  to-day?  He  had  access  to  Hebrew  manuscripts 
in  all  the  synagogues  in  all  Palestine,  besides  copies  in  private 
hands ;  and  every  one  of  those  manuscripts  was  hundreds  of 
years  more  ancient  than  an,  Hebrew  manuscript  that  any  higher 
critic  ever  saw  or  ever  will  see.  His  discourses  show  that  he 
had  diligently  read  those  books,  and  was  familiar  with  their 
contents.  There  are  probably  not  more  than  a  dozen  higher 
critics  on  earth  who  would  set  themselves  above  him  i  -  native 
abilities,  mental  grasp  and  intellectual  acuteness.  He  could  sing 
and  preach  and  pray  in  Hebrew  as  well  as  ordinary  critics  can 
in  English  or  in  German,  and  in  all  his  references  to  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  we  do  not  recall  a  single  palpable  error  or  a  blunder ; 
and  upon  purely  literary  grounds  his  position  as  a  critic  must 
be  infinitely  higher  than  that  of  any  man  on  earth  to-day.  He 
was  nearer  to  the  days  of  Ezekiel  and  Daniel  than  we  are  to 
the  times  of  Wickliffe,  our  oldest  translator  of  the  Bible.  He 
was  nearer  the  time  of  the  origin  of  large  portions  of  the 
Scripture,  according  to  the  higher  critics,  than  we  are  to  the 
Pilgrim  Fathers,  and  about  as  near  to  what  they  call  the  actual 
close  of  the  canon  as  we  are  to  the  Revolutionary  War  and  t^  ^ 
battle  of  Bunker  Hill.  .  .  .  He  was  in  a  position  to  speak  impar- 
tially concerning  these  matters.  He  was  neither  a  priest  nor  a 
Levite,  and  did  not  subsist  on  the  tithes  and  offerings  .of  the 
people,  and  so  had  no  pecuniary  interest  in  the  national  religion. 
He  was  not  a  scribe  or  a  lawyer,  nor  was  he  a  theological  pro- 
fessor, bound  by  his  position,  his  vows,  or  his  salary,  to  study 
the  law  and  defend  and  proclaim  it,  however  he  might  doubt  its 
authority.  He  was  untrammeled  by  creeds,  confessions  and 
sectarian  bands.  ...  If,  therefore,  we  may  not  cite  the  testimony 
of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God,  perhaps  we 
may  ask  the  opinion  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  higher  critic, 
who,  from  his  acquaintance  with  Biblical  antiquities,  Hebrew 
idioms  and  textual  criticisms,  was  in  a  position  to  give  lessons 
to  every  higher  critic  now  on  the  face  of  the  earth ;  and  whose 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  109 

personal  independence,  conscientious  truthfulness,  mental  grasp, 
and  intellectual  acumen,  give  his  words  a  weight  not  possessed 
by  those  of  many  of  the  critics  of  to-day  (pp.  40-44). 

Those  who  cling  tenaciously  to  the  old  belief  in  the 
Bible  are  constantly  charged  by  the  "critics"  with  bibli- 
olatry — with  making  a  "fetish"  of  the  Bible.  Mr.  Hast- 
ings gives  us  a  lively  page  or  two  on  this  subject,  from 
which  I  can  extract  only  a  few  lines : 

According  to  some  of  the  wise  and  prudent  critics  of  the  day, 
ther:^  is  great  danger  that  the  Bible  will  be  regarded  as  a  kind 
of  fetish  like  those  which  are  worshiped  by  the  lowest  idolaters, 
who  tie  bags  of  rags,  snake  skins,  dried  toads,  and  other 
trumpery,  about  them,  and  make  them  objects  of  adoration. 
And  there  seems  to  be  a  fear  that  the  civilization  and  advance- 
meit  of  the  age  will  be  imperiled  by  people  who  look  on  the 
Holy  Scriptures  with  superstitious  regard  as  a  fetish,  and,  con- 
sequently, when  critics  who  have  been  emancipated  from  this 
form  of  fetish  worship  by  finding  out  that  the  Bible  is  nothing 
but  an  ordinary  book,  full  of  errors,  blunders,  misstatements, 
fictions,  falsehoods  and  forgeries,  they  at  once  become  enamored 
of  its  beauty,  and  prize  it  far  more  highly  than  they  ever  did 
when  they  regarded  it  a3  a  fetish.  .  .  .  One  thing  to  be  noted 
is.  that  while  other  fetishes  are  manufactured  by  old  women, 
medicine  men  and  magicians,  in  dim  corners  and  in  dark  ages 
rnd  dark  places  of  the  earth,  the  manufacture  of  this  particular 
fetish  has  flourished  most  in  the  centers  of  education,  intelli- 
gence and  civilization:  and  cince  the  year  1804  a  single  society 
organized  in  London,  the  commercial  and  literary  metropolis  of 
the  world,  has  produced  135  millions  of  these  fetishes,  in  318 
languages,  262  of  which  have  been  translated  between  1883  and 
i8o?:  more  than  four  millions  of  them  having  been  sent  forth 
during  the  year  1892-3.  And  though  there  have  been  more 
books  written  against  this  fetish,  more  laws  made  prohibiting 
it,  more  men  persecuted  and  slain  for  having  it,  than  any  other 
fetish  that  the  world  has  ever  known,  yet  there  are  to-day  ten 
times  as  many  of  those  fetishes  in  existence  as  there  are  of  any 
other  fetish  known  to  men  (pp.  51-53). 


no  SHORT  ESSAYS  IN 

[Aug.  24.  1895.] 
SHALL    WE    LET    HIM    ALONE? 

If  a  man's  "search  for  truth"  lands  him  in  a  very  old  and 
well-known  error,  is  he  to  be  allowed  to  teach  that  error  in 
pulpit  or  professor's  chair,  established  and  paid  for  by  evan- 
gelical folk,  because  forsooth  he  was  "searching  for  truth"  when 
he  landed  in  the  old  bog? — Western  Recorder. 

Oh,  yes,  you  must  let  him  alone ;  for  if  you  ''evan- 
gelical folk"  who  are  footing  the  bill  venture  to  inter- 
fere, the  cry  of  persecution  will  be  raised,  you  will  hear 
of  Galileo,  the  burning  of  witches,  and  the  Inquisition. 
You  will  learn  that  this  is  an  age  of  free  thought,  and 
that  bigotry  is  a  back  number.  It  will  be  rung  in  your 
ears  that  the  "old  and  well-known  error"  is  a  new  truth 
about  fifty  years  in  advance  of  the  age,  and  people  who 
are  not  posted  will  believe  it.  So  when  a  wolf  gets  into 
the  fold,  you  must  not  take  a  club  to  him,  but  you  must 
try  to  convince  him  that  he  is  in  the  wrong  place,  and 
persuade  him  in  a  brotherly  way  to  retire.  You  must 
understand  that  all  men  have  a  right  to  their  opinions, 
except  you  who  are  orthodox. 


[Aug.  24,  1895.] 
A    CASE    IN    POINT. 

Pertinent  to  the  question  just  quoted  from  the  West- 
ern Recorder,  is  the  following  from  the  New  York 
Times,  which  was  written  last  spring,  when  Heber. New- 
ton, who  has  been  on  the  rationalistic  track  for  some 
years,  announced  his  disbelief  of  the  resurrection  of 
Christ: 

Dr.  Newton,  in  his  sermon  last  Sunday,  took  pains  to  affirm 
that   the   doctrine   he   was   preaching   on    this    subject    (Christ's 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  m 

resurrection),  from  the  pulpit  of  a  Protestant  Episcopal  church, 
was  not  only  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  but  was  diametrically  opposed  to  that  doctrine.  He 
said  that  he,  for  his  part,  did  not  believe  what  "the  church 
undoubtedly  believes."  This  raises  a  question,  not  in  the  least 
of  theological  controversy,  but  of  personal  good  faith  and  moral- 
ity. Theologians  and  moralists  and  gentlemen  may  differ  to  the 
end  of  time  about  what  constitutes  "the  resurrection  of  the 
body,"  but  theologians  and  moralists  and  gentlemen  will  agree 
that  when  a  man  finds  that  he  not  only  disbelieves  the  doctrine 
of  the  church  of  which  he  is  a  minister,  but  finds  it  imposed 
upon  him  to  attack  that  doctrine  in  public,  his  clear  duty  is  to 
leave  the  ministry  of  that  church.  Tf  he  remains  in  its  ministry 
and  attacks  its  doctrines  from  its  own  pulpit,  it  is  not  "heresy"' 
t'lat  he  is  guilty  of,  so  much  as  a  far  more  substantia'  offense 
that  will  be  recognized  as  an  offense  by  people  whose  personal 
respect  for  him  would  not  be  affected  in  the  least  by  any  views 
whatever  which  he  might  hold,  and  in  his  individual  capacity 
promulgate  about  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  or  about  any 
other  theological  dogma. 


[Aug.  24.  1895.] 

FELLOWSHIP    IX    UNBELIEF. 

The  Christian  Observer  asks  the  question:  "At  the  laying  of 
the  corner-stone  of  the  new  University  of  Chicago,  a  week  ago. 
Rabbi  Hirsch  made  the  convocation  address.  But  as  a  Jew,  of 
course  he  denies  the  divinity  of  Christ.  How  can  it  be  right 
to  call  on  an  enemy  or  an  opponent  of  Christ  to  take  public 
part  in  such  a  service  as  the  dedication  of  an  edifice  to  His 
honor?" 

This  is  a  very  pertinent  question,  provided  it  is  true 
that  it  was  a  ''dedication  of  an  edifice  to  His  honor." 
But  in  that  case  it  would  be  equally  pertinent  to  ask. 
How  could  it  be  right  for  a  Jew  to  accept  the  invitation 
to  take  part  in  such  a  service?  Both  the  invitation,  how- 
ever, and  the  acceptance  of  it,  are  easily  accounted  for; 
for  when  a  Jew  who  had  lost  faith  in  his  own  Bible, 


112  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

meets  Christians  who  have  also  lost  faith  in  it,  he  knows 
that  the  latter  are  coming  toward  him  in  the  rejection 
of  Christ,  and  this  inspires  him  with  a  brotherly  feeling 
toward  them.  As  men  of  a  common  faith  are  drawn 
toward  one  another,  so  are  men  of  a  common  unbelief. 


[Nov.  9,  1895.] 
GEO.    F.    MOORE    ON    JUDGES. 

Professor  Moore  starts  out  by  saying  that  the  author 
of  Judges  in  its  completed  form  wrote  in  the  sixth  cen- 
tury, B.  C,  "which,"  he  says,  "was  separated  from  the 
times  of  the  judges  by  as  many  centuries  as  lie  between 
us  and  the  Crusades  ;"  that  is,  from  seven  to  nine  hundred 
years.  He  affirms,  with  the  German  rationalists  generally, 
that  the  song  of  Deborah  is  "the  only  contemporary 
monument  of  Israelite  history  before  the  kingdom ;"  and 
he  represents  it  as  being  somewhat  fragmentary  (Preface 
I,  2;  pp.  171-173).  He  thinks  that  the  author  made  use 
of  an  older  Book  of  Judges,  containing  accounts  of 
many  Israelite  heroes  :  and  he  ascribes  this  older  book 
to  the  seventh  century,  or  about  the  time  of  Manasseh 
(20,  24).  Not  contented  with  the  analysis  of  the  "Hexa- 
teuch"  made  out  by  his  predecessors  in  the  critical  field, 
he  claims  to  find  the  writers,  J  and  E,  with  a  redactor 
following  them,  in  the  Book  of  Judges  also,  and  thus 
he  makes  a  Heptateuch.  As  a  matter  of  course,  he 
thinks  that  there  is  very  little  real  history  in  the  book. 
He  calls  the  accounts  of  the  different  judges,  "folk- 
stories;"  and  if  any  of  our  readers  does  not  know  right 
certainly  what  these  are,  let  him  think  of  Uncle  Remus 
and  Bro.  Rabbit.  He  says,  in  connection  with  this  con- 
ception of  the  book,  that  the  author's  "motive  and  aim 
are   not   historical,   but   religious"    (p.    16).     This   is   a 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  113 

thought  very  common  with  this  class  of  critics.  They 
have  an  idea  that  if  a  man  writes  history  for  the  purpose 
of  inculcating  religious  sentiments,  he  is  by  no  means 
bound  to  tell  the  truth.  He  may  twist  and  warp  and 
invent  ad  libitum,  and  it  is  all  right.  If  one  of  these 
critics  should  chance  to  hear  a  modern  "revival  sermon/' 
made  up,  as  most  of  them  are,  of  touching  and  exciting 
stories  of  conversions  and  death-bed  scenes,  he  would 
think  that  no  one  of  the  stories  was  true;  that  some  of 
them  may  have  had  some  slight  foundation  in  fact,  but 
that  the  preacher,  having  a  rclii^ioiis,  and  not  a  historical, 
motive,  was  at  full  liberty  to  lie,  if  he  could  only  by  that 
means  bring  sinners  to  repentance.  I  am  afraid  that  the 
supposition  might  in  some  instances  be  correct ;  but  one 
thing  is  certain — if  the  sinners  in  the  audience  thought 
so,  instead  of  repenting  they  would  go  away  cursing  the 
preacher.  In  modern  times,  then,  if  a  speaker  or  writer 
has  a  religious  aim  in  reciting  history,  he  must  tell  the 
truth,  or  he  will  miss  his  aim  ;  but  the  critics  think  that 
in  ancient  times  he  need  not  tell  the  truth  when  his  aim 
is  a  religious  one.  Yet  every  one  of  these  religious 
writers  lived  under  a  law  which  said.  Thou  shalt  not  lie. 


[Nov.  23,  1895.] 
A    COMAIOX    .MISTAKE. 

It  is  a  very  common  remark  that  the  writers  of  the 
four  Gospels  do  not  claim  inspiration.  The  latest  occur- 
rence of  it  that  has  met  my  eye  is  in  the  following 
extract  from  an  article  by  Prof.  E.  H.  Johnson,  in  a 
recent  number  of  the  Independent : 

Furthermore,  as  one  studies  all  four  (Gospels),  he  not'ces 
that  there  is  no  claim  in  any  of  them  to  inspiration.  The  obvi- 
ous claim  is  to  knowledge ;  how  the  Holy  Spirit  was  related  to 


114  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

the  writing  of  these  four  momentous  records  is  a  matter  of 
inference,  and  of  inference  exchisively.  I  think  the  inference 
good  that  the  promised  guidance  by  the  Spirit  into  knowledge 
of  the  truth  about  Jesus  would  bring  with  it  inspiration,  in  the 
sense  of  helping  to  tell  what  the  writer  knew.  Why  the  infer- 
ence is  clear  to  e  is  not  now  the  point ;  the  point  is  that  this 
kind  of  help  is  not  claimed  in  the  Gospels. 

This  Professor's  conception  of  inspiration  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  the  one  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures,  or  he 
could  not  have  written  the  third  sentence  in  this  extract, 
and  he  forgets  that  all  four  of  the  Giospel  writers  repre- 
sent Jesus  as  promising  to  the  twelve  apostles  such  help 
from  the  Holy  Spirit  that  it  would  not  be  they  that 
spoke,  but  the  Spirit  speaking  in  them.  He  forgets  that 
two  of  these  writers  were  themselves  recipients  of  this 
promise.  Moreover,  they  all  wrote  their  Gospels  after 
the  time  for  the  fulfillment  of  this  promise,  and  if  they 
were  not  thus  inspired  they  quote  Jesus  as  making  a 
promise  which  he  never  fulfilled.  It  is  absurd  to  think 
that  they  would  quote  the  promise  if  it  had  failed  of 
fulfillment,  and  therefore  their  assertion  under  the  cir- 
cumstances is  proof  that  at  least  Matthew  and  John  had 
been  inspired.  In  other  words,  their  record  of  the 
promise  that  they  should  be  inspired  is,  when  rightly 
considered,  a  claim  that  they  had  been. 


[Nov.  30,  1895.] 

ST  ILL    ANOTHER    BOOK    FROM    PROFESSOR 
GREEN. 

This  venerable  author  seems  determined  to  "fight  to 
a  finish,"  as  the  sportsmen  have  taught  us  to  say.  The 
destructive  critics  are  still  his  game.  Scarcely  was  the 
paper  of   his   "Higher   Criticism"   dry    from   the   press, 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  115 

\vhen  another  and  still  much  larger  work  comes  forth 
under  the  title  of  "The  Unity  of  Genesis."  In  this  he 
confines  his  attention  to  the  documentary  hypothesis, 
and,  in  opposition  to  it,  insists  that  the  book,  wliile  mak- 
ing use  of  written  sources,  is  the  composition  of  a  single 
writer,  with  a  fixed  purpose  and  plan  which  he  main- 
tains from  beginning  to  end.  He  holds,  of  course,  that 
this  author  was  Moses.  I  desire  to  say  much  of  the 
book,  for  it  is  the  most  conclusive  book,  I  think,  that  the 
venerable  Professor  has  written,  and  the  style,  contrary 
to  what  is  naturally  expected  from  one  so  advanced  in 
life,  has  in  it  more  fire  and  snap  than  I  have  observed 
in  his  former  writings.  The  veteran  warrior  seems  not 
only  determined  to  fight  to  a  finish,  but  to  strike  his 
heaviest  blows  at  the  close  of  the  fight.  What  a  pity  we 
can  not  move  back  the  hand  on  the  dial  of  his  life  about 
twenty  years ! 


[Nov.  30.  1895-] 

SO:\rE    QUESTIONS. 

Bro.  McGarvey: — I  am  led  to  call  the  attention  of  your 
department  to  the  case  of  Bro.  H.,  who  gives  utterance  in  the 
pulpit,  and  also  in  private,  to  some  strange  sentiments. 

1.  He  preaches  that  the  Book  of  Job  is  not  genuine  history — 
that  the  story  is  hypothetical  and  parabolic. 

2.  He  teaches  that  such  men  as  Buddha,  ISIencius,  Confucius 
and  Seneca  were  inspired  by  God,  and  that  the  apostles  of 
Christ  differed  from  them  only  in  having  more  than  their  in- 
spiration. To  prove  they  were  inspired  he  quotes  Rom.  1:20; 
Ps.  19:  I. 

3.  He  also  holds  that  instrumental  music  in  the  church  is 
taught  in  Col.  3  :  16,  in  the  word  "psalm."  He  holds  and  teaches 
that  the  church,  as  divinely  organized,  is  sufficient  for  all  word 
and  work  in  the  Lord ;  and  he  is  opposed  to  other  organizations 
set  up  to  do  the  work  of  the  church. 


ii6  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

You  will  help  a  multitude  of  the  brethren  by  giving  your 
opinion  on  each  of  the  above  items. — e.  s. 

I  doubt  this  last  statement.  If  any  man  teaches  or 
believes  that  the  founders  of  heathen  religions,  and 
heathen  teachers  of  morals,  were  inspired  of  God,  and 
is  silly  enough  to  quote  in  proof  of  it  the  two  passages 
cited,  which  say  nothing  at  all  about  inspiration,  I  doubt 
whether  anything  I  can  say  will  do  him,  or  those  who 
believe  with  him,  any  good.  And  if  any  man  who  is  a 
preacher  believes  that  the  apostle  teaches  the  use  of 
instrumental  music  in  the  church,  by  enjoining  the  sing- 
ing of  psalms,  he  is  one  of  those  smatterers  in  Greek 
who  can  believe  anything  that  he  wishes  to  believe. 
When  the  wish  is  father  to  the  thought  correct  exegesis 
is  like  water  on  a  duck's  back.  As  to  the  Book  of  Job, 
there  is  room  for  doubt  how  much  of  it  is  historical. 
That  there  was  such  a  man,  that  he  was  a  remarkably 
righteous  man,  and  that  he  bore  suffering  with  remark- 
able patience,  we  know  from  the  statements  of  Ezekiel 
and  James;  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  contents  of  the 
first  and  last  chapters  of  the  book  are  historical;  but  I 
believe  that  the  speeches  throughout  the  book  were  com- 
posed by  the  inspired  author,  with  the  exception  of 
the  essential  arguments  at  the  basis  of  them.  I  suppose 
that  the  preacher  referred  to  believes  that  the  portions  of 
the  book  which  have  the  form  of  history  are  imaginary. 
If  he  does,  he  differs  from  two  inspired  writers,  and  this 
is  enough  to  prove  that  he  is  wrong. 

Finally,  that  the  church  of  God,  when  organized 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  is  sufBcient  for  all  word 
and  work  of  the  Lord — i.  e.,  for  all  "word  and  work" 
enjoined  upon  her — is  denied  by  no  man  of  sense.  As  to 
any  other  organization  "set  up  to  do  the  work  of  the 
church,"  if  there  is  such  a  thing,  and  if  it  can  do  the 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  n^ 

work  of  the  church,  I  see  no  reason  for  opposing  it.  If 
some  one  else  wants  to  do  the  same  work  that  I  am 
trying  to  do,  by  all  means  let  him  do  it;  for  then  there 
will  be  two  at  it  instead  of  only  one.  So  of  the  church. 
When  some  men  preached  the  gospel  through  envy,  to 
add  to  Paul's  affliction,  he  was  glad  that  the  preaching 
was  done,  though  he  did  not  fancy  the  motive.  But  why 
oppose  something  which  has  no  existence?  The  famous 
Don  Quixote  fought  imaginary  foes,  but  they  turned 
out  to  be  windmills,  and  he  got  the  worst  of  it.  There 
are  plenty  of  organizations  which  are  not  doing  the  work 
of  the  church  to  keep  us  busy.  If  we  oppose  them,  as 
we  should,  we  shall  have  no  time  to  throw  away. 


[Jan.  i8.  1896.] 

A    .AIODERX    PROPHET    OX    THE    PROPHETS. 

Christian  Literature  copies  from  The  Outlook  an 
article  by  its  editor,  Lyman  Abbott,  on  the  question: 
''What  is  a  Prophet?"  In  answering  the  question  Mr. 
Abbott  claims  that  there  have  been  men  in  all  the  ages 
since  the  close  of  revelation,  even  in  our  own  age,  who 
are  just  as  truly  prophets  as  were  Isaiah,  Jeremiah  or 
Ezekiel.  He  names  among  these,  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria, Augustine,  Luther,  John  Wesley,  Jonathan  Ed- 
wards, Swedenborg,  Maurice,  Bushnell,  Channing,  Fin- 
ney, Henry  Ward  Beecher  and  Phillips  Brooks.  I  sup- 
pose that  modesty  forbade  him  to  name  also  the  suc- 
cessor of  Beecher,  Lyman  Abbott.  This  numeration  is 
alone  sufficient  to  show  that  his  conception  of  a  prophet 
differs  very  widely  from  that  held  by  writers  of  the 
Bible.  In  other  words,  it  shows  the  one  distinctive 
peculiarity  of  a  prophet,  miraculous  inspiration,  is  denied 
bv  Mr.  Abbott. 


:i8  SHORT   ESSAYS  IN 

But  at  one  place  in  the  essay  the  writer  seems  to 
assume  that  the  modern  prophets  are  in  reahty  favored 
with  inspiration.     He  says  : 

hi  a  true  sense,  every  real  preacher  is  a  prophet.  He  is  not 
a  prophet  if  he  does  not  receive  a  message  direct  from  God 
which  he  can  communicate  to  man — if  he  is  not  a  foreteller,  an 
interpreter,  a  divine  messenger,  he  is  not  a  true  preacher. 

I  suppose  that  Mr.  Abbott  considers  himself  a  ''real 
preacher,"  and  therefore  a  real  prophet.  Let  him  then 
communicate  to  us  some  message  that  he  has  received 
''direct  from  God"  before  he  asks  us  to  agree  with, 
him.  The  Plymouth  Church  supposed  him  to  be  a  real 
preacher  when  they  chose  him  as  the  successor  of  Mr. 
Beecher.  I  wonder  if  they  have  ever  received  from  him 
a  message  which  he  received  "direct  from  God."  If  they 
have,  I  should  think  that  it  would  have  found  its  way 
into  some  of  the  New  York  papers,  and  especially  into 
his  own.  As  he  calls  his  paper  The  Outlook,  I  suppose 
that  it  keeps  an  outlook  for  such  things,  and  yet  if  it  has 
ever  contained  any,  the  world  is  none  the  wiser  for  it. 
Mr.  Abbott  should  not  keep  his  light  hid  under  a  bushel. 
If  he  is  receiving  messages  "direct  from  God,"  he  is  an 
unfaithful  steward  while  he  keeps  them  to  himself. 

But  Mr.  Abbott,  though  he  does  not  demonstrate  his 
proposition  by  giving  an  actual  example  of  a  message 
received  "direct  from  God,"  undertakes  to  argue  that 
there  must  be  prophets  now,  notwithstanding  this  fail- 
ure.    He  says : 

To  deny  to  the  Christian  church  prophets;  to  assume  that 
prophecy  ceased  with  the  close  of  the  New  Testament  canon; 
to  draw  a  sharp  line  between  the  prophets  before  and  the 
prophets  subsequent  to  the  first  century — appear  to  me  to  foster 
two  errors  :  One,  that  which  implies  to  the  Hebrew  prophets  an 
infallibility  which  they  never  claimed  for  themselves;  the  other, 
to  deny  to  the  church,   since  Christ,  that  presence  of  a  living. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  119 

speaking,  interpreted  God,  which  was  characteristic  of  the  He- 
brew church,  and  which  Christ  distinctly  and  emphatically  de- 
clared should  continue  to  be  characteristic  of  the  Christian 
church. 

I  am  not  able  to  see  that  drawing  such  a  line  would 
impute  to  the  Hebrew  prophets  "an  infallibility  which 
they  never  claimed  for  themselves ;"  it  would  be  only 
saying  that  we  have  now  no  prophets.  And  it  seems  to 
me  that  if  the  prophets  that  we  now  have  are  fallible, 
we  have  little  use  for  them.  If  a  man  receives  a  mes- 
sage "direct  from  God,"  and  then  is  incapable  of  report- 
ing it  with  entire  certainty  to  me,  I  believe  that  I  can 
dispense  with  his  services,  and  remain  content  with  the 
messages  which  the  prophets  of  the  Bible  have  delivered. 
They  could  report  their  messages  with  perfect  accuracy, 
and  prove  both  that  they  did  this,  and,  more  important 
still,  that  the  messages  actually  came  from  God,  by 
working  miracles.  So  long  as  our  modern  prophets  fail 
to  do  this,  we  must  not  be  blamed  for  doubting  whether 
the  messages  which  they  bring  come  from  God  at  all. 
Indeed,  I  am  quite  sure  that  the  messages  which  came 
from  the  prophets  in  Mr.  Abbott's  list,  at  least  some  of 
their  messages,  actually  came  from  the  devil.  I  am  sure 
of  this,  because  they  contradict  messages  which  certainly 
did  come  from  God  through  the  prophets  of  old. 

The  other  error  involved  in  drawing  the  sharp  line 
between  modern  prophets  and  those  of  old,  is  as  invisible 
to  my  eyes  as  the  one  just  disposed  of.  If  Christ  "dis- 
tinctly and  emphatically  declared"  that  "the  presence  of 
a  speaking  God"  should  be  continued  to  be  characteristic 
of  the  Christian  church,  it  was  omitted  from  his  sayings 
reported  in  the  Xew  Testament ;  and  I  think  that  this 
must  be  one  of  the  messages  which  Mr.  Abbott  has 
received  "direct  from  God."     But  here,  as  in  everv  case 


120  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

of  the  kind,  I  can  not  be  sure  that  he  has  received  such 
a  message,  especially  when  I  remember  that  the  "pres- 
ence of  a  speaking  God"  is  not  a  fact  in  modern  church 
liistory. 

I  might  quote  other  vagaries  from  this  article ;  but 
I  have  said  enough,  I  think,  to  show  how  wild  a  man 
becomes  when  his  "outlook"  is  a  look  outside  the  Bible, 
and  far  away. 


[Jan.  i8,  1896.] 

THE    TITLE    "PHARAOH." 

Many  readers  of  the  Bible  are  puzzled  to  know  why 
all  the  kings  of  Egypt  are  called  Pharaoh,  only  three  of 
them,  Necho,  Shishank  and  Hophrah,  being  known  by 
any  other  name  in  the  Scriptures.  The  meaning  of  the 
word,  and  its  use  by  the  Egyptians  as  a  title,  are  ex- 
plained by  Brugsch  Bey  in  the  following  passage  from 
his  "Egypt  Under  the  Pharaohs"  : 

The  Memphite  tombs  tell  much  concerning  the  customs  of 
Pharaoh  and  his  court.  The  sovereign  bears  the  official  title  of 
"King  of  the  Upper  and  Lower  Country;"  he  is  also  called 
Perao,  "the  great  house;"  better  known,  perhaps,  under  the 
Hebrew  equivalent  of  Pharaoh.  The  people  honored  him  as 
"lord"  (neb)  and  "god"  (neter).  At  sight  of  him  every  native 
prostrated  himself  and  touched  the  ground  with  his  nose,  and  it 
was  an  especial  favor  if  the  command  of  his  lord  permitted  him 
to  kiss  his  knee  (p.  23). 

It  seems,  from  this,  that  the  Hebrews  adopted  one  of 
the  current  Egyptian  titles  of  the  king  as  their  habitual 
name  for  him,  spelling  and  pronouncing  it  according  to 
the  idiom  of  their  own  tongue.  While  all  of  these  kings 
had  each  his  own  personal  name,  it  was  not  common, 
even  in  Egypt,  to  use  it  in  speaking  of  him,  the  more 
complimentary  titles  being  preferred.     We  have  similar 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  121 

usages  in  modern  times.  For  instance,  it  is  very  rarely 
that  we  see  the  name  Abdul  Hamid  applied  to  the  pres- 
ent ruler  of  Turkey;  or  Alexander  applied  to  the  ruler 
of  Russia.  Instead  of  this,  we  almost  uniformly  speak 
of  the  one  as  the  Czar  and  the  other  as  the  Sultan.  In 
reality,  our  English  Bibles  ought  to  read,  in  every  in- 
stance, instead  of  Pharaoh,  the  Pharaoh  ;  for  then  the 
title,  as  in  the  cases  of  the  Czar  and  the  Sultan,  would 
not  be  taken  by  the  uninformed  reader  as  a  personal 
name. 


[Feb..!.  1896.] 

JOB    AND    AMENI. 

Last  week  we  gave  a  condensed  account  of  Ameni  and 
his  career,  as  depicted  on  the  walls  of  his  own  tomb.  He 
was  a  provincial  ruler  in  Egypt  before  the  time  of  Abra- 
ham. This  tomb  is  a  rock-hewn  sepulchre  about  forty  feet 
square,  and  its  walls  are  painted  with  pictures  of  farm- 
life  and  hieroglyphic  writing.  Now  I  give  from  the 
same  source  his  representation  of  himself  from  a  moral 
point  of  view.  A  translation  of  the  inscription  which  I 
am  about  to  quote  is  also  given  by  Brugsch,  in  "Egypt 
Under  the  Pharaohs"   (p.  61).     Ameni  says: 

I  never  wronged  the  daughter  of  a  poor  man.  I  never  op- 
pressed the  widov;^.  I  never  hindered  a  herdsman.  I  never  took 
men  from  their  superintendent.  The-re  was  not  a  pauper  near 
me.  In  my  time  there  was  no  one  hungry.  When  famine  came, 
I  arose  and  cultivated  the  fields  of  my  province  to  the  boundary 
both  north  and  south.  I  enabled  the  inhabitants  to  live  by 
making  provision.  There  was  not  a  hungry  man  in  my  province. 
I  gave  to  each  widow  the  property  of  her  husband.  I  did  not 
favor  the  elder  more  than  the  younger  in  what  I  gave.  In  great 
rises  of  the  Nile  bringing  prosperity  I  did  not  exact  arrears 
of  rent. 


122  SHORT  ESSAYS  IN 

'This,"  says  the  author  of  the  article  in  the  Expos- 
itory Times  from  which  I  quote,  "is  as  grand  as  it  is 
remarkable."  Think  of  it  as  being  the  writing  of  a  man 
who  lived  before  the  age  of  Abraham;  of  one  in  the 
midst  of  an  idolatrous  land,  and  who  was  himself  an 
idolater.  He  was  a  priest  of  three  gods,  Horus,  Shu 
and  Tefnut,  and  superintendent  of  the  priests  of  Chnem. 
If  we  suspect  Ameni  of  boasting,  and  doubt  whether  he 
actually  attained  the  exalted  character  here  delineated, 
still  the  profession  which  he  makes  shows  what  ideas 
men  then  had  of  a  noble  and  becoming  career  on  the 
part  of  one  who  was  a  rich  ruler  and  a  powerful  military 
leader. 

But  what  has  this  to  do  with  Job?  Much  in  several 
ways.  In  the  first  place,  it  has  been  thought  necessary 
to  give  the  Book  of  Job  a  comparatively  late  date  in 
order  to  make  it  possible  that  in  his  day  there  was  so 
lofty  a  conception  of  life  and  character  as  are  expressed 
by  himself  and  his  friends;  and  especially  has  it  been 
held  that  Job  could  not  have  been  a  real  person  at  the 
remote  age  in  which  it  was  formerly  thought  he  lived. 
Both  these  conceptions  are  exploded  by  the  autobiog- 
raphy of  Ameni ;  for  here  is  an  author  who  certainly 
lived  several  centuries  before  the  earliest  date  assigned 
to  Job,  and  his  moral  conceptions  are  very  easily  com- 
parable to  those  of  the  patriarch.  Here  is  indeed  an 
illustrated  autobiography,  the  contents  of  which  will 
compare  in  volume  with  those  of  the  Book  of  Job.  It 
covers  three  sides  of  a  room  forty  feet  square  and  sixteen 
feet  high.  Reduced  to  feet,  this  area  gives  1,920  square 
feet,  and  the  whole  of  the  writing,  if  printed  on  paper, 
would  make  a  folio  volume  two  feet  square  of  480  pages. 
True,  the  illustrations  exceed  in  space  the  hieroglyphic 
writing,  and  the  latter  takes  up  more  space  than  alpha- 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  123 

betical  writing;  but  after  allowance  is  made  for  all  this, 
there  is  still  quite  a  volume  of  writing. 

In  the  second  place,  this  writing  shows  to  a  demon- 
stration that  the  ethical  sentiments  of  the  Book  of  Job, 
no  matter  how  early  we  put  the  composition  of  the  book, 
is  not  an  anachronism.  Both  this  fact,  and  the  still  more 
important  one  that,  good  a  man  as  Ameni  represents 
himself.  Job  is  still  his  superior,  will  appear  if  we  com- 
pare with  the  extract  printed  above  what  Job  says  of  his 
own  past  dealings  with  his  fellow-men.  Then  turn  to 
the  thirty-first  chapter  of  Job,  in  which,  when  hard 
pressed  by  the  reiterated  charge  of  having  brought  his 
calamities  upon  himself  by  secret  sins,  he  is  at  last  con- 
strained to  vindicate  himself  by  strong  assertions  on  the 
contrary. 

If  Ameni  could  say,  'T  never  wronged  the  daughter 
of  a  poor  man,"  Job  could  say,  "I  made  a  covenant  with 
mine  eyes;  how,  then,  should  I  look  upon  a  maid?"  He 
could  further  say:  'Tf  mine  heart  hath  been  enticed  unto 
a  woman,  and  I  have  laid  wait  at  my  neighbor's  door, 
then  let  my  wife  grind  unto  another,  and  let  others  bow 
down  upon  her.  For  that  were  a  heinous  crime  ;  yea,  it 
were  an  iniquity  to  be  punished  by  the  judges;  for  it  is 
a  fire  that  consumeth  to  destruction,  and  would  root  out 
all  mine  increase." 

If  Ameni  could  say,  'T  never  oppressed  a  widow;  I 
never  hindered  a  herdsman  ;  there  was  not  a  pauper  near 
me ;  in  my  time  there  was  no  one  hungry ;  when  famine 
came  I  arose  and  cultivated  the  fields  of  my  province  to 
the  boundary  both  north  and  south  ;  I  enabled  its  inhabit- 
ants to  live  by  making  provision,"  Job  could  say,  "If  I 
have  withheld  the  poor  from  their  desire,  or  have  caused 
the  eyes  of  a  widow  to  fail  [that  is,  when  she  looked  to 
him  for  help],  or  have  eaten  my  morsel  alone,  and  the 


124  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

fatherless  have  not  eaten  thereof;  if  I  have  seen  r,ny 
perish  for  v/ant  of  clothing,  or  the  needy  had  no  cover- 
ing; if  his  loins  have  not  blessed  me,  and  if  he  were  not 
v^armed  with  the  fleece  of  my  sheep;  if  I  have  lifted  up 
my  hand  against  the  fatherless  because  I  saw  my  help 
in  the  gate — then  let  my  shoulder  fall  from  the  shoulder- 
blade,  and  mine  arm  be  broken  from  the  bone.'' 

If  Ameni  could  say,  "In  great  rises  of  the  Nile  bring- 
ing prosperity  I  did  not  exact  arrears  of  rent" — by  which 
I  understand  him  to  mean  that  when  the  crops  of  his 
country  are  abundant  he  did  not  exact  from  his  tenants 
what  they  had  failed  to  pay  of  their  rents  when  the  river 
did  not  overflow  its  banks  and  the  crops  failed — Job 
could  say,  ''If  I  despised  the  cause  of  my  manservant 
or  my  maidservant  when  they  contended  with  me,  what 
then  shall  I  do  when  God  riseth  up?  And  when  he 
visiteth,  what  shall  I  answer?  Did  not  he  that  made  me 
in  the  womb  make  him?"  And  he  could  say,  "The 
stranger  did  not  lodge  in  the  street,  but  I  opened  my 
door  to  the  traveler." 

Ameni  has  no  more  to  say ;  but  Job  goes  farther. 
While  Ameni  was  an  idolater.  Job  could  say:  "If  I  have 
made  gold  my  hope,  and  said  to  fine  gold,  Thou  art  my 
confidence;  if  I 'rejoiced  because  my  wealth  was  great, 
and  because  my  hand  had  gotten  much;  if  I  beheld  the 
sun  when  it  shined,  or  the  moon  walking  in  brightness, 
and  my  heart  hath  been  secretly  enticed,  and  my  mouth 
hath  kissed  my  hand ;  this  also  were  an  iniquity  to  be 
punished  by  the  judges;  for  I  should  have  lied  to  God 
who  is  above." 

Ameni  was  a  warrior,  and  rejoiced  greatly  at  the 
downfall  of  his  enemies.  Job  was  a  man  of  peace,  and 
could  say:  "If  I  rejoice  at  the  destruction  of  him  that 
hated  me,  or  lifted  up  myself  when  evil  found  him ;  yea, 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  125 

I  suffered  not  my  inouth  to  sin  by  asking  his  life  with 
a  curse." 

Finally,  while  Ameni  could  say  that  in  times  of  fam- 
ine he  had  all  the  lands  of  his  province  cultivated,  which 
had  to  be  done  by  irrigation,  of  course,  and  at  great 
expense,  lest  the  people  should  suffer.  Job  could  say  in 
reference  to  the  way  in  which  he  had  obtained  possession 
of  his  own  lands,  "If  my  land  cry  out  against  me,  and 
the  furrows  thereof  weep  together  [because  their  former 
owner  had  been  robbed  of  them]  :  if  I  have  eaten  the 
fruits  thereof  without  money,  or  have  caused  the  owners 
thereof  to  lose  their  life,  let  thistles  grow  instead  of 
wheat,  and  cockle  instead  of  barley." 

If  any  one  is  curious  to  know^  how  either  Job  or 
.\meni  could  have  attained  to  so  high  a  conception  of 
the  duties  of  life,  rising  almost  to  the  teachings  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  answer  can  not  be  given  by 
the  evolutionist  without  inventing  dates  to  suit  the  an- 
swer ;  for  these  men  lived  too  near  the  beginning  of  the 
race  to  have  risen  so  high  above  the  mental  status  of 
the  baboon.  And  again,  the  time  between  them  and- 
Christ  was  too  great  for  the  very  small  advance  from 
their  standard  up  to  his.  But  the  answer  is  found  in 
the  Scripturally  revealed  fact  that  the  pure  morality  wath 
which  the  race  started  upon  its  career  had  not  yet  be- 
come extinct,  even  among  idolatrous  nations,  but  was 
still  retained  in  the  minds  of  their  nobler  men.  Thus  the 
testimonv  of  the  book  stands. 


[July  18.  1896.1 
A    CONVERSATION. 

'The  Bible  is  a  failure  ;  for  there  are  only  a  few  that 
will  be  saved." 


126  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Anszvcr — Infidelity  is  a  much  greater  failure ;  for  by 
it  nobody  at  all  will  be  saved. 

"According  to  the  Bible  account  of  things,  the  devil 
is  more  powerful  than  God." 

Ans. — Better  wait  till  the  fight  is  over,  before  you 
decide  who  whips. 

"If  the  Bible  is  true,  it  would  be  better  not  to  have 
been  created." 

Ans. — But  you  have  been  created ;  so  you  had  better 
make  the  best  of  it. 

"None  but  the  friends  of  Jesus  testified  to  his  resur- 
rection." 

Ans. — Of  course  not;  for  honest  men  could  not  tes- 
tify to  his  resurrection  till  they  knew  it  to  be  a  fact,  and 
that  knowledge  made  them  his  friends. 

"The  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  were  all  interested 
witnesses." 

Ans. — Yes;  they  were  interested  to  the  extent  of 
receiving  imprisonment,  scourging  and  death  for  testify- 


[  March  7,  1896.] 

LESSONS    FROM    THE    MONUMENTS. 

By  means  of  the  inscriptions  in  tombs  and  in  temples 
in  Egypt,  the  modern  scholar  is  now  able  to  walk  about 
among  the  builders  of  those  costly  structures,  and  to 
almost  raise  from  the  dead  the  men  in  whose  honor  they 
were  constructed.  In  some  instances,  however,  the  serv- 
ant is  made  more  famous  than  his  lord,  because  what  he 
wrote  about  his  lord  has  perished,  while  what  he  wrote 
of  himself  has  been  preserved.  This  is  especially  the 
case  with  one  eminent  man  who  lived  under  three  kings 
of  the  sixth  dynasty.     His  name  was  Una,  and  he  was 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  127 

a  statesman,  a  warrior  and  an  architect.  He  excavated 
a  costly  tomb  for  himself,  and  on  its  walls,  according  to 
the  custom  of  the  times,  he  wrote  an  account  of  his  own 
career.  Brugsch,  from  whom  our  information  is  derived, 
says  of  this  account : 

This  narrative  of  the  life  and  actions  of  a  single  man  among 
the  contemporaries  of  the  kings  Teta,  Pepi  and  Aler-en-Ra,  ex- 
hausts all  that  we  know  of  their  history   (p.  49). 

A  brief  sketch  of  his  work  in  the  single  line  of  tomb- 
building  will  throw  much  light  upon  the  mystery  which, 
until  late  years,  hung  around  the  pyramids,  the  tombs 
and  the  cofihns  of  that  remote  period — a  period  more 
remote  than  the  time  of  Abraham.  I  collate  from  *' Egypt 
Under  the  Pharaohs.", 

Una  tells  us  that  he  received  from  Pepi,  the  second 
king  under  wdiom  he  lived,  "orders  to  quarry  a  sarcoph- 
agus out  of  the  mountain  of  Turah."  This  was  to 
be  the  king's  coffin  wdien  he  died.  We  know  from  many 
that  have  been  preserved  how  a  sarcophagus  was  made. 
A  huge  block  of  granite  was  cut  from  the  quarry  with 
hammer  and  chisel,  usually  about  seven  feet  long  by- 
three  and  a  half  feet  wide  and  high.  This  was  finely 
polished  on  three  sides  and  the  ends,  and  an  excavation 
was  made  in  the  other  side  of  sufficient  dimensions  to 
receive  the  mummy  ot  the  king.  A  lid  of  the  same  stone 
was  quarried  to  cover  the  sarcophagus,  usually  about  six 
inches  thick.  This  was  also  polished,  and  after  the 
mummy  had  been  interred  it  was  laid  in  place  and  fast- 
ened on  with  cement.  Then  the  sarcophagus  was  moved 
on  rollers  to  its  place  Avithin  the  rock-hewni  sepulchre 
which  had  been  previously  excavated.  The  western  bluff 
of  the  Nile  valley,  which  is  a  limestone  formation  ex- 
tending along  the  western  border  of  Egypt,  was  honey- 
combed with  these  excavations. 


128  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Una  proceeds  to  tell  us  that  the  sarcophagus  which  he 
was  ordered  to  prepare,  after  being  quarried,  "was  con- 
veyed down  the  river  on  one  of  the  king's  vessels  with 
its  cover  and  many  other  hewn  stones  for  the  building 
of  the  royal  pyramid."  This  last  remark  shows  that  he 
was,  at  the  same  time,  engaged  in  erecting  the  pyramid 
in  which  the  sarcophagus,  with  its  contents,  was  to  be 
laid  away. 

When  Mer-en-Ra,  the  next  king,  came  to  the  throne, 
Ave  are  told  that  he  "was  at  once  mindful  of  the  eternal 
dwelling,  which,  after  his  death,  should  contain  his 
mummy,"  and  that  "Una  immediately  received  the  com- 
mand to  prepare  everything  for  the  work,  and  to  quarry 
the  hardest  stone  on  the  southern  border  of  Egypt."  He 
says:  "His  Majesty  sent  me  to  the  country  of  Abhat  to 
bring  back  a  sarcophagus  with  its  cover ;  also  a  small 
pyramid,  and  a  statue  of  the  King  Mer-en-Ra,  whose 
pyramid  is  called  Kha-nefer."  The  name,  Kha-nefer, 
means  the  beautiful  rising.  It  was  so  called,  perhaps, 
because  it  rose  in  beautiful  proportions. 

Una  was  next  ordered  to  cut  a  block  of  alabaster, 
which  was  also  quarried  far  up  the  Nile.  "The  gigantic 
load  was  to  be  sent  by  water  on  great  rafts  sixty  cubits 
in  length  and  thirty  in  breadth,  which  had  been  previ- 
ously specially  constructed  for  this  purpose.  But  the 
river  was  found  to  have  fallen  so  low  that  it  was  impos- 
sible to  make  use  of  such  large  rafts,  so  Una  was  obliged 
to  build  smaller  ones  in  all  haste.  The  wood  for  this 
purpose  had  to  be  felled  in  the  neighboring  country 
inhabited  by  negroes."  It  is  thus  related  by  Una :  ''His 
Majesty  sent  me  to  cut  down  four  forests  in  the  South, 
in  order  to  build  thrc"  large  vessels  and  four  towing 
vessels  out  of  the  acacia  wood  in  the  country  of  Ua-uat. 
And,    behold,    the    officials    of    Areret,    Aam    and    Mata 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  129 

caused  the  wood  to  be  cut  down  for  the  purpose.  I 
executed  all  this  in  the  space  of  a  year.  As  soon  as  the 
waters  rose,  I  loaded  the  rafts  with  immense  pieces  of 
granite  for  the  pyramid  Kha-nefer  of  the  King  ]\Ier- 
en-Ra." 

Our  readers  will  recognize  in  the  acacia  wood  here 
mentioned  the  same  wood  which  Moses  used  for  the  con- 
struction of  the  Tent  of  Meeting.  He  found  the  trees 
in  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  just  across  the  Red  Sea  from 
the  region  in  which  Una  found  the  four  forests  of  the 
same  in  Africa.  Being  both  light  and  durable,  it  was 
well  suited  to  the  purposes  of  both  ]\Ioses  and  Una. 

The  reader  should  not  be  misled  by  Una's  account  of 
bringing  granite  from  the  upper  waters  of  the  Nile  for 
the  construction  of  pyramids,  and  conclude  that  all  of 
the  material-  for  those  vast  structures  was  thus  trans- 
ported, or  was  composed  of  granite.  This  hard  rock 
was  used  only  for  the  interior  passages  of  the  pyramids, 
and  in  a  few  instances  for  the  finishing  course  of  the 
exterior.  With  these  exceptions,  the  pyramids  were  built 
of  the  limestone  quarried  from  the  bluff  on  which  they 
stood;  and  the  blocks  of  this  stone  were  used  in  the 
rough  as  they  came  from  the  quarry.  ]\Iany  conjectures 
have  been  advanced,  some  of  them  very  wild,  as  to  the 
date  and  purpose  of  the  erection  of  the  pyramids;  but 
it  remained  for  the  builders  themselves,  after  their  lips 
had  been  sealed  for  thousands  of  years,  to  settle  all  these 
questions  ;  and  they  have  settled  them  by  a  "still  small 
voice"  which  comes  from  the  inscriptions  in  their  tombs 
and  on  their  monuments.  It  is  now  a  well-established 
fact  that  the  pyramids  were  familiar  objects  to  the  eyes 
of  Abraham  and  Joseph,  and  that  their  ages  were  already 
counted  by  centuries  when  Moses  was  born. 


130  SHORT   ESSAYS  IN 

[March  7,  1896.] 

THE    SIGN    OF    JONAH. 

Since  the  conclusion  of  my  series  of  articles  on  the 
Book  of  Jonah,  several  articles  on  the  meaning  of  the 
expression,  "The  Sign  of  Jonah,"  have  appeared  in  the 
Expository  Times,  one  of  which  I  have  already  noticed. 
In  the  November  number  two  such  articles  appeared  in 
immediate  succession,  and  they  present  a  very  striking 
contrast,  the  one  with  the  other.  One  of  them  is  from 
the  pen  of  Sir  J.  W.  Dawson,  of  Montreal,  better  known 
as  Principal  Dawson,  under  which  title  he  won  his 
knighthood.  As  might  be  expected  from  his  usual  atti- 
tude on  critical  questions,  he  takes  the  natural  and  obvi- 
ous view  that  the  sign  of  Jonah  was  the  fact  of  his 
experience  in  the  bowels  of  the  fish,  as  described  in  the 
Book  of  Jonah.  In  the  course  of  his  remarks  he  touches 
the  question  whether  Christ  could  have  made  the  refer- 
ence to  Jonah  which  he  does  if  the  story  were  fictitious, 
and  he  says : 

It  is  true  that  a  preacher  may  cite  as  illustrations  fictitious 
or  allegorical  personaj^es,  but  he  must  not  cite  them  as  analogical 
evidence.  Let  him  try  this  before  an  audience  of  unbelievers, 
and  he  will  find  them  uttering,  "That  proves  nothing;  the  thing 
never  happened." 

Thus  the  learned  writer  takes  the  ground  that  Jesus 
did  not  cite  the  case  of  Jonah  as  an  illustration,  but  as 
an  event  analogous  to  his  own  experience  about  to  take 
place  in  the  heart  of  the  earth. 

The  writer  shows  his  appreciation  of  the  work  of  the 
class  of  critics  who  deny  the  historicity  of  the  story  of 
Jonah  in  two  very  expressive  passages.     First,  he  says : 

The  Sadducees  logically  rejected  Jesus  as  a  pretentious  im- 
postor.   Yet  it  would  seem  that,  in  so  far  as  the  case  of  Jonah 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  131 

is  concerned,  they  were  nearer  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  than 
the  "eminent  scholars"  of  to-day.  What  can  plain  men  do  when 
our  religious  guides  deny  so  many  statements  of  alleged  facts  to 
which  Christ  commits  himself? 

And  again : 

The  truth  is  that  neither  the  common  people  nor  those  of 
scientitic  habits  of  thought  can  lind  any  standing-room  on  the 
gossamer  wires  on  which  critical  rope-dancers  attempt  to  bal- 
ance themselves.  I  have  in  my  long  pilgrimage  had  much  ex- 
perience of  the  modes  of  thought  both  of  the  people  at  large 
and  of  advanced  scientific  thinkers,  and  I  know  this  to  be  the 
case. 

The  other  writer  is  *'Rev.  Charles  Harris,  AI.  A., 
F.  R.  G.  S.,"  whose  article  not  only  presents  a  striking 
contrast  to  that  of  Dr.  Dawson,  but  it  strikingly  illus- 
trates his  remark  about  the  "critical  rope-dancers."  He 
takes  the  ground  that  the  fish  story  is  an  allegory  ;  and, 
unlike  others  wdio  have  taken  this  view,  he  actually 
undertakes  to  show  what  the  allegory  is.  He  first  tells 
us  that  the  word  for  Niucz'cJi  and  that  for  fish  are  almost 
identical,  the  one  being  Nimia,  and  the  other  Xitiiu.  (To 
the  eye  of  an  English  reader  their  identity  is  not  very 
apparent.)  From  this  he  concludes  that  "Xineveh  is, 
therefore,  the  great  Fish  City."  With  this  etymology 
as  a  start,  he  proceeds  to  explain  the  allegory  thus : 

The  solution  of  the  story  which  is  now  offered  amounts  to 
this,  that  the  fish  which  swallowed  Jonah  waj  none  other  than 
Nineveh,  the  great  Fish  City  itself ;  out  of  the  depths  of  which 
place,  menaced  on  all  sides  by  physical  peril,  and  overwhelmed 
by  the  crime  and  wickedness  around  him,  he  uttered  the  cry  for 
deliverance  so  poetically  expressed  in  chapter  2. 

li  Sir  J.  W.  Dawson  can  not  find  standing-room  on 
the  gossamer  wires  of  this  critical  rope-dancer,  wdiat 
more  does  the  man  want? 


132  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

[March  14,  1896.] 

LESSONS    FROM    THE    MONUMENTS. 

STORY  OF  JOSEPH  CONFIRMED. 

It  is  now  well  settled  by  Egyptologists  that  the  Pha- 
raoh who  befriended  Joseph  was  the  last  of  the  kings 
called  Hyksos,  conquerors  of  Egypt  who  came  from 
Asia.  At  El-Kab  there  is  a  very  ancient  tomb,  the 
owner  of  which  was  one  Baba,  who  lived,  according  to 
the  evidence  of  the  inscriptions  in  his  tomb,  about  the 
same  time.  The  following  extract  from  the  inscription 
is  given  by  Dr.  Brugsch : 

I  loved  my  father ;  I  honored  my  mother ;  my  brothers  and 
sisters  loved  me.  I  went  out  of  the  door  of  my  house  with  a 
benevolent  heart;  I  stood  there  with  refreshing  hand;  splendid 
were  my  preparations  which  I  collected  for  the  festal  day.  Mild 
was  my  heart,  free  from  violent  anger.  The  gods  bestowed 
upon  me  abundant  prosperity  on  earth.  The  city  wished  me 
health  and  a  life  full  of  enjoyment.  I  punished  the  evil-doers. 
The  children  who  stood  before  me  in  the  town  during  the  days 
which  I  fulfilled  were — great  and  small — sixty;  just  as  many 
beds  were  provided  for  them;  just  as  many  chairs;  just  as  many 
tables.  They  all  consumed  one  hundred  and  twenty  ephas  of 
durra ;  the  milk  of  three  cows,  fifty-two  goats  and  nine  she  asses, 
a  hin  of  balsam  and  two  jars  of  oil. 

My  words  may  seem  a  jest  to  a  gainsayer.  But  I  call  the 
god  Mentu  to  witness  that  what  I  say  is  true.  I  had  all  this 
prepared  in  my  house;  in  addition  I  put  cream  in  the  store- 
chamber  and  beer  in  the  cellar  in  a  more  than  sufficient  number 
of  hin-measures. 

I  collected  corn  as  a  friend  of  the  harvest  god.  I  was  watch- 
ful at  the  time  of  sowing.  And  when  the  famine  arose,  lasting 
many  years,  I  distributed  corn  to  the  city  each  year  of  the 
famine. 

On  this  Dr.  Brugsch  remarks : 

Not  the  smallest  doubt  can  be  raised  as  to  whether  the  last 
words  of  the  inscription  relate  to  a  historic  fact  or  not.     How- 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  133 

ever  strongly  we  may  be  inclined  to  recognize  a  general  way  of 
speaking  in  the  narrative  of  Ameni  Lour  readers  will  recollect 
the  story  of  Ameni  J,  where  years  of  famine  are  spoken  of,  just 
as  strongly  does  the  context  of  the  present  statement  compel  us 
to  refer  this  record  of  "a  famine  lasting  many  years"  to  an 
epoch  historically  defined.  Xow,  since  famines  succeeding  one 
another  are  of  the  greatest  rarity  in  Egypt,  and  Baba  lived  and 
worked  under  the  native  king,  Sequen-Ra  Taa  III.,  in  the  ancient 
city  of  El-Kab,  about  the  same  time  during  which  Joseph  exer- 
cised his  office  under  the  Hyksos  kings,  there  remains  for  a 
satisfactory  conclusion  but  one  fair  inference — that  the  "many 
years  of  famine"  in  the  days  of  Baba  must  correspond  to  the 
seven  years'  famine  under  Joseph's  Pharaoh,  who  was  one  of 
the  shepherd  kings. — "Egypt  Under  the  Phanwhs,"  120.  122. 

Brugsch  furnishes  other  evidence  for  the  truth  of  his 
conclusion,  found  in  the  agreement  of  the  narrative  of 
Genesis  with  what  is  now  known  of  places  and  of  the 
habits  and  titles  of  the  time.  In  this  way  the  contem- 
porary records  of  the  Egyptians  are  gradually  coming 
to  light,  after  an  entombment  of  thousands  of  years,  to 
tell  the  same  story,  so  far  as  they  speak,  that  the  Hebrew 
records  have  related  through  all  the  intervening  genera- 
tions. Who  can  fail  to  see  in  this  the  hand  of  Him  who 
caused  the  latter  records  to  be  made,  and  who  will  not 
allow  them  to  be  discredited? 


[March  2S,   1896.] 

OTHER    LESSONS    FROM    THE    MOXUAIEXTS. 

THE    SCRIBES. 

Every  reader  of  the  Xew  Testament  has  observed 
how  important  and  influential  a  body  the  scribes  were  in 
Israel;  and  every  attentive  reader  of  the  Old  Testament 
has  observed  that  the  "scribe"  was  one  of  the  most  hon- 
ored officers  of  every  king.     The  monumental   inscrip- 


134  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

tions  in  Egypt  throw  a  flood  of  light  on  the  education 
and  the  labors  of  this  class;  for  they  abounded  in  Egypt 
precisely  as  they  did  in  Palestine.  The  Bible  writers 
nowhere  enter  into  these  details.  They  take  it  for 
granted,  when  they  speak  of  the  scribes,  that  everybody 
knew  who  and  what  they  were.  It  is  only  in  an  inci- 
dental way  that  we  learn  anything  of  their  private  life 
from  what  is  there  said  of  them.  But  the  Egyptian 
inscriptions,  especially  those  on  the  inner  walls  of  tombs, 
unlike  the  Bible  records,  are  largely  concerned  with  the 
minute  details  of  private  life,  and  here  we  find  a  most 
instructive  account  of  the  scribes.  Maspero,  in  his  "Life 
in  Ancient  Egypt,"  tells  what  he  has  thus  learned,  put- 
ting it  partly  in  his  own  words,  and  partly  in  those  of 
the  inscriptions.  I  quoted  from  him  last  week  in  regard 
to  the  various  occupations  of  artisans  in  the  time  of  the 
Pharaohs,  and  it  is  in  this  connection  that  he  speaks  of 
the  superior  advantages  enjoyed  by  the  scribes. 

'There  is  nothing  like  being  a  scribe,"  the  wise  say;  "the 
scribe  gets  all  that  is  upon  the  earth."  But  we  must  not  be 
dazzled  by  this  assertion,  or  always  expect  those  who  boast  of 
learning  to  be  skillful  authors  in  verse  or  prose — wealthy,  influ- 
ential personages.  No  doubt  there  are  some  scribes  of  very  high 
rank.  Prince  Amenhiounamif,  the  oldest  son  of  Pharaoh,  the 
designated  successor  to  the  throne,  and  his  brothers  are  all 
scribes.  Nakhiminou,  the  hereditary  lord  of  Akhmin,  is  a  scribe ; 
so  also  is  Baknikhonsou,  the  high  priest  of  Theban  Amen,  and 
the  greatest  religious  dignitary  of  the  kingdom.  But  so  are 
Totimhabi,  whom  the  architect  Amenmosou  employs  to  register 
the  workmen  in  the  building-yard  every  morning;  Hori,  who 
passes  his  days  in  counting  heads  of  cattle  and  entering  the 
numbers  in  his  books ;  Masirou,  the  keeper  of  accounts  to  the 
master  carpenter  Tinro ;  Noffronpit,  who  runs  about  drawing 
up  petitions  or  writing  notes  for  illiterate  people,  who  require 
such  aid — these  are  all  scribes,  and  they  bear  the  same  title  as 
the  son  of  the  sovereign  or  the  most  powerful  barons  of  the 
kingdom.     The  scribe  is  simply  a  man  who  knows  how  to  read 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  135 

and  write,  to  draw  up  administrative  formulas,  and  to  calculate 
interest.  The  instruction  which  he  has  received  is  a  necessary 
complement  to  his  position,  if  he  belongs  to  a  good  family, 
whilst  if  he  be  poor  it  enables  him  to  obtain  a  lucrative  situation 
in  the  administration  or  at  the  house  of  a  wealthy  personage 
(pp.  8.  9). 

The  existence  of  such  an  industrial  class,  embracing- 
in  its  membership  ambitious  men  from  the  lower  walks 
of  life,  and  not  thought  unworthy  of  the  sons  of  kings, 
indicates  a  very  advanced  state  of  civilization,  and  the 
wide  diftusion  of  such  intelligence  among  the  people  as 
to  call  for  the  services  of  this  class.  And  this  was  in 
the  time  of  the  Pharaohs  to  whom  the  people  of  Israel 
were  under  bondage — the  age  in  which  destructive 
critics,  now  living,  were  recently  wont  to  say  that  the 
art  of  writing  was  not  sufficiently  developed  to  enable 
Moses  to  write  the  Pentateuch.  Furthermore,  the  ac- 
count of  all  the  sons  of  the  king  being  scribes,  connected 
with  the  statement  of  Exodus  that  Moses  was  called  the 
son  of  Pharaoh's  daughter,  and  that  of  Stephen,  that  he 
was  ''instructed  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians," 
leaves  nothing  wanting  in  the  proof  that  he  possessed 
all  the  requirements  for  the  composition  of  both  the 
prose  and  the  poetry  of  those  wonderful  docimients. 


[^larch  28,   1896.] 
A    :\rODERX    REDACTOR. 

It  is  Vv'ellhausen  who  taught  our  American  "critics" 
to  aiTirm  that  the  early  prophets  deny  that  God  gave 
Israel  a  law  of  sacrifices :  or,  rather,  it  was  he  who 
taught  this  lesson  to  Robertson  Smith,  from  whom  our 
neighbors  learned  it.  It  may  interest  our  readers  to  see 
how  Mr.  Baxter  handles  Wellhausen's  attempt  to  make 


136  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

good  this  position.  The  latter  quotes  Hos.  8:ii  thus: 
"Ephraim  has  built  for  himself  many  altars  to  sin  ;  the 
altars  are  there  for  him  to  sin.  How  many  soever 
my  instructions  may  be,  they  are  counted  those  of  a 
stranger  ;"  and  he  says  : 

This  text  has  had  the  unmerited  misfortune  of  having  been 
forced  to  do  service  as  a  proof  that  Hosea  knew  of  copious 
writings  similar  in  contents  to  our  Pentateuch.  All  that  can  be 
drawn  from  the  contrast,  "instead  of  following  my  instructions" 
(for  that  is  the  meaning  of  the  passage),  is  that  the  prophet 
had  never  once  dreamed  of  the  possibility  of  cultus  being  made 
the  subject  of  Jehovah's  directions. 

Baxter  replies  to  this  in  the  foUow^ing  passage : 

Our  author's  treatment  of  this  quotation  from  Hosea  is  con- 
spicuous at  once  for  extreme  tenuity  and  for  audacity.  The 
prophet  says,  "I  may  write  for  him  the  manifold  injunctions  of 
the  laws;"  Wellhausen  translates,  "How  many  soever  my  in- 
structions may  be."  And  having  thus  emasculated  the  words,  he 
criticizes  them  thus  :  "This  text  has  had  the  unmerited  misfor- 
tune of  being  forced  to  do  service  as  a  proof  that  Hosea  knew 
of  copious  writings  similar  in  contents  to  our  Pentateuch."  No 
doubt  the  text  proves  that  Hosea  knew  of  copious  legal  writ- 
ings; but  if  you  suppress  all  reference  to  the  writing,  it  is  no 
longer  the  same  text.  Wellhausen  elides  the  only  verb,  the  verb 
to  write,  which  the  clause  contains,  and  then  boasts  that  there  is 
no  reference  in  the  clause  to  writing!  That  is  not  a  game 
which  it  requ'r^s  much  cleverness  to  play  at.  We  are  tempted 
to  ask  if  it  be  not  his  own  literary  failings  that  have  led  him  to 
impute  such  awful  "redactions"  to  the  Jewish  writers  ^  Clearly, 
"redaction"  did  not  end  with  the  exile.  The  only  "unmerited 
misfortune"  which  we  know  the  above  text  to  have  experienced 
is  to  have  had  its  meaning  so  shamefully  suppressed  by  its  pro- 
fessed exegete. 

Here,  also,  why  does  our  author  stop  his  quotation  so  soon  ? 
Had  he  quoted  the  very  next  verse,  he  would  have  let  his  read- 
ers see  that  Hosea  makes  God  speak  of  "the  sacrifices  of  mine 
offerings" — words  which  clearly  imply  a  divine  regulation  of 
sacrifice;  and  he  would  have  let  his  readers  see  also  that  the 
reason  why  the  Lord  accepteth  them  not,  even  though  they  bring 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  137 

his    own    appointed    sacritices,    is   because    of    their    iniquity   and 
their  sins. 

While  it  is  ])erfectly  clear  to  every  reader  of  the 
prophets  that  they  denounced  in  scathing  terms  the  folly 
and  wickedness  of  bringing  sacrifices  to  the  altar  while 
continuing  in  flagrant  sins  against  God's  moral  law, 
there  was,  perhaps,  never  a  more  perverse  wresting  of 
Scripture  than  die  attempt,  on  the  part  of  infidels  like 
Wellhausen.  co  prove  that  they  condemned  sacrifice  it- 
self and  u[i=*vied  its  divine  appointment.  But  more  of 
this  hereafter. 


[Apr.  4,  1896.] 

EPITAPH  OF  AX   AGNOSTIC. 

I  have  clipped  from  a  newspaper  the  epitaph  which 
is  said  to  be  inscribed  on  Professor  Huxley's  tomb.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  he  was  the  originator  of  the 
title  ''Agnostic."  Having  been  called  an  infidel  by  Pro- 
fessor Wace,  he  objected  to  the  appellation,  not  so  much 
because  it  was  untruthful,  as  because,  in  the  estimation 
of  many,  it  is  a  term  of  reproach.  He  preferred,  as 
representing  his  theological  position  more  exactly,  the 
title  ''Agnostic,"  or  one  who  does  not  know  whether  or 
not  there  is  a  God.  He  died  as  he  lived,  and  on  the 
tombstone  some  friend  inscribed  these  lines : 

"And  if  there  be  no  meeting  past  the  grave, 
If  all  is  darkness,  silence,  yet  'tis  rest. 

Be  not  afraid,   ye    waiting   hearts   that    weep. 

For  God  still  'giveth  his  beloved  sleep,' 

And  if  an  endless  sleep  he  wills — so  best. ' 

This  epitaph,  like  many  others  which  we  may  read 
in  the  graveyard,  belies  the  life  of  the  man  to  whom  it 
refers.     What  right  had  its  author  to  use  the  name  of 


138  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

God  here,  when  he  who  hes  beneath  never  recognized  a 
God?  What  right  had  he  to  steal  a  passage  of  Scripture 
which  speaks  of  God  as  giving  his  beloved  sleep,  and 
apply  it  to  a  man  who  professed  not  to  know  God?  And 
what  sense  is  there  in  affirming  rest  and  sleep  of  a  dead 
man,  if  there  is  no  future  ''past  the  grave"?  Sleep  and 
rest  can  be  affirmed  only  of  living  beings.  A  clod  neither 
sleeps  nor  rests  ;  and  Huxley,  to-day,  is  only  a  clod,  if 
his  theory,  when  alive,  was  a  true  one.  This  epitaph 
reminds  one  of  the  story  told  of  Robert  Burns — that  he 
went  through  a  village  graveyard  once,  reading  the 
epitaphs,  and,  on  coming  out,  asked  the  sexton :  "Where 
do  they  bury  the  wicked  people  who  die  in  this  town?" 
The  sexton  answered:  "Over  there,  sir."  Burns  said: 
**No ;  there  are  none  but  the  good  buried  there."  The 
sexton  insisted:  "All,  good  and  bad,  are  buried  there, 
sir."  Burns  then  took  a  piece  of  chalk  and  wrote  over 
the  gateway :  "Here  lie  the  dead,  and  the  living  lie." 


[Apr.  II,  1896.] 
LESSONS    FROM    THE    MONUMENTS. 
WOMEN    IN    ANCIENT    EGYPT. 
The  doctrine  indicated  in  the  saying,  "God  made  man 
upright,  and  he   sought  out  many   inventions,"   is  con- 
firmed,   and   the   opposing   doctrine   of   moral   evolution 
contradicted,  by  the  history  of  the  condition  of  women 
in   heathen    lands.     While   in   all   heathen   lands   at   the 
present  time  women  are  slaves  and  drudges,  it  was  not 
so  in  the  earliest  time  to  which  history  now  reaches  back. 
M.  Maspero,  in  his  "Life  in  Ancient  Egypt,"  has  taken 
pains  to  put  together,  in  a  lively  sketch,  the  information 
on  this  subject  gathered  from  the  inscriptions  in  tombs 
and  on  monuments.     I  quote  some  extracts  in  which,  to 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  139 

give  vividness  to  his  style,  he  uses  the  present  tense  for 
the  time  of  the  Pharaohs  mentioned  in  Exodus: 

The  Egyptian  woman  of  the  lower  and  middle  classes  is 
more  respected  and  more  independent  than  any  other  woman 
in  the  world.  As  a  daughter,  she  inherits  an  equal  share  with 
her  brothers;  as  a  wife,  she  is  the  real  mistress  of  the  house, 
nihit  pi,  her  husband  being,  as  it  were,  merely  her  privileged 
guest.  She  goes  and  comes  as  she  likes,  talks  to  whom  she 
pleases  without  any  one  being  able  to  question  her  actions,  goes 
among  men  with  an  uncovered  face,  a  rule  quite  opposite  to 
the  habits  of  Syrian  women,  who  are  ahvays  more  or  less  strictly 
veiled.  ...  In  truth,  the  woman  is  the  mainspring  that  keeps 
the  whole  household  in  movement.  She  rises  at  daybreak,  lights 
the  fire,  distributes  the  bread  for  the  day,  sends  the  men  to  the 
workshop,  the  cattle  to  the  pasture  under  the  care  of  the  small- 
est boys  and  girls,  then,  once  rid  of  her  family,  she  goes  in  turn 
to  the  water  supply.  .  .  .  Lisually  married  very  young,  a  mother 
before  she  is  fifteen,  frequently  a  grandmother  before  she  is 
thirty,  children  are  always  multiplying  and  swarming  around 
her.  A  large  family  is  a  blessing  from  the  gods,  which  is  wel- 
comed with  gratitude,  partly  because  its  keep  is  inexpensive.  .  .  . 
The  children  display  their  affinity  by  her  name  rather  than  by 
that  of  the  father.  They  are  Khonshotpou,  Ahmosou,  Nouri, 
born  of  Mrs.  Banisit  or  Mrs.  ]\Iimout.  and  not  Khonshotpou, 
Ahmosou,    Xouri,   sons   of   Mr.   Xibtooui   or  of    ]Mr.    Khamoisit. 

This  last  circumstance  reminds  one  of  the  relation 
that  existed  between  the  kings  of  Judah  and  their 
mothers;  the  mother,  and  not  the  wife,  being  queen,  and 
being  uniformly  named  in  connection  with  the  king's 
accession  to  the  throne. 

Love  for  one's  mother  is  often  mentioned  among  the 
virtues  of  men  whose  names  appear  in  the  inscriptions, 
and  Maspero  quotes  from  one  of  the  inscriptions  the 
following  admonition  given  by  one  Khonshotpou  to  his 
son  Ani : 

It  is  God  himself  who  gave  her  to  thee.  From  the  begin- 
ning she  hath  borne  a  heavy  burden  with  thee,  in  which  I  have 
been  unable  to  help  her.     When  thou  wast  born  she  really  made 


140  SHORT  ESSAYS  IN 

herself  thy  slave.  During  three  years  she  nursed  thee  at  her 
breast,  and  as  thy  size  increased  she  never  allov/ed  herself  to 
say,  Why  should  I  do  this?  She  went  with  thee  to  school,  and 
when  thou  wast  learning  thy  letters,  she  placed  herself  near  to 
thy  master  every  day  with  bread  and  beer  from  her  house.  And 
now  that  thou  art  grown  up,  and  hast  a  wife  and  a  house  in 
thy  turn,  remember  always  thy  helpless  infancy,  and  the  care 
which  thy  mother  lavished  on  thee,  so  that  she  may  never  have 
occasion  to  reproach  thee,  nor  to  raise  her  hands  to  heaven 
against  thee,  for  God  would  fulfill  her  curse. 

This  advice  reminds  us  of  the  words  of  Solomon  on 
the  same  subject,  and  they  clearly  show  that  the  hght  of 
a  primitive  civilization  had  not  yet  faded  out  in  heathen 
Egypt. 


[Apr.  II,  1896.] 
THE    DARKNESS    OF    ATHEISM. 

An  editorial  in  the  February  number  of  the  Exposi- 
tory Times  brings  out  some  very  interesting  facts  in 
regard  to  the  religious  experience  of  Professor  Romanes, 
who  has  been  frequently  mentioned,  of  late,  as  a  convert, 
in  his  later  years,  from  atheism  to  Christianity.  It 
seems  that  belief  in  Darwinism  led  him,  as  it  did  Darwin 
himself,  Tyndall  and  Huxley,  into  the  unbelief  for  which 
they  were  noted.  He  published  an  anonymous  work  in 
1876,  entitled  "A  Candid  Examination  of  Theism,"  the 
authorship  of  which  was  so  successfully  concealed  that 
it  did  not  become  generally  known  until  after  his  death 
in  1894.  At  the  close  of  that  book,  in  which  he  had 
demonstrated  to  his  own  satisfaction  that  there  is  no 
God,  he  was  candid  enough  to  express  the  feeling  which 
oppressed  his  soul  when  this  conclusion  was  reached. 
The  passage  reads  like  the  wail  of  a  lost  soul: 

I  am  not  ashamed  to  confess  that,  with  this  virtual  negation 
of  God,  the  universe  to  me  has  lost  its  soul  of  loveliness;  and. 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  141 

although  from  henceforth  the  precept  to  "work  while  it  is  day" 
will  doubtless  gain  an  intensified  force  from  the  terribly  intensi- 
fied meaning  of  the  words,  "The  night  cometh  when  no  man  can 
work."  yet  when  at  times  I  think,  as  think  at  times  I  must,  of 
the  appalling  contrast  between  the  hallowed  glory  of  that  creed 
which  was  once  mine,  and  the  lonely  mystery  of  existence  as  I 
now  find  it — at  such  times  I  shall  feel  it  impossible  to  avoid  the 
sharpest  pang  of  which  my  nature  is  susceptible. 

If  other  atheists  would  be  equally  candid,  how  many 
such  wailings  of  despair  would  be  appended  to  the  lines 
of  argument  by  which  they  drag  themselves  out  into 
darkness.  It  was  perhaps  this  very  candor,  however, 
that  distinguished  him  from  his  fellows  in  scientific 
unbelief,  and  made  it  possible  that  he  should  be  rescued 
from  his  despair  before  it  became  eternal.  In  his  des- 
peration he  looked  around  for  some  source  of  relief,  and 
his  eye  rested  on  the  one  only  mian  of  high  attainments 
who  accepted  Darwinism,  and  yet  held  fast  to  faith  in 
Christ.  This  man  was  John  Gulick,  then  a  missionary 
in  Japan.  He  wrote  to  him,  and  his  letter  still  further 
reveals  the  sadness  and  unrest  of  his  soul.  I  copy  the 
most  significant  part : 

The  question  which,  for  my  own  benefit  alone,  I  want  to 
ask  is,  How  is  it  that  you  have  retained  your  Christian  belief? 
Looking  to  your  life,  I  know  that  you  must  have  done  so  con- 
scientiously: and,  looking  to  your  logic,  I  equally  know  that  you 
can  not  have  done  so  without  due  consideration.  On  what  lines 
of  evidence,  therefore,  do  you  mainly  rely?  Years  ago  my  own 
belief  was  shattered,  and  all  the  worth  of  life  destroyed,  by 
what  has  ever  since  appeared  to  me  overpowering  assaults  from 
the  side  of  rationality;  and  yours  is  the  only  mind  I  have  met 
with  which,  while  greatly  superior  to  mine  in  the  latter  respect, 
appears  to  have  reached  an  opposite  conclusion.  Therefore,  I 
should  like  to  know,  in  a  general  way.  how  you  vievv'  the  matter 
as  a  whole;  but  if  you  think  the  question  is  one  that  I  ought  not 
to  have  asked,  I  hope  you  will  neither  trouble  to  answer  it,  nor 
refuse  to  accept  in  advance  my  apology  for  putting  it. 


142  SHORT,  ESSAYS   IN 

How  piteous  was  this  appeal,  and  how  impossible 
that  a  man  who  was  then  a  missionary  to  the  heathen 
should  not  answer  it  to  the  best  of  his  ability.  A  cor- 
respondence followed,  and  the  final  result  was  the  res- 
toration of  the  unhappy  scientist  to  the  faith  of  his  child- 
hood. This  reminds  me  of  a  most  touching  passage  in 
Fronde's  "Nemesis  of  Faith": 

Arthur,  is  it  treason  to  the  Power  that  has  given  us  our 
reason,  and  willed  that  we  should  ulc  it,  if  I  say  I  would  gladly 
give  away  all  I  am,  and  all  I  ever  may  become,  all  the  years, 
every  one  of  them,  which  may  be  given  me  to  live,  but  for  one 
week  of  my  old  childhood's  faith,  to  go  back  to  calm  and  peace 
again,  and  then  to  die  in  hope?  Oh,  for  one  look  of  the  blue 
sky,  as  it  looked  then  when  we  called  it  heaven !  The  old 
family  prayers,  which  taught  us  to  reverence  prayer,  however 
little  we  understood  its  meaning ;  the  far  dearer  private  prayers 
at  our  own  bedside ;  the  dear  friends  for  whom  we  prayed ;  the 
still  calm  Sunday  with  its  best  clothes  and  tiresome  services, 
which  we  little  thought  were  going  so  deep  into  our  hearts  when 
we  thought  them  so  long  and  tedious ;  yes,  it  is  among  these  so 
trifling  seeming  scenes,  these,  and  a  thousand  more,  that  our 
faith  has  wound  among  our  heartstrings ;  and  it  is  the  thought 
of  these  scenes  now  which  threatens  me  with  madness  as  I  call 
them  up  again. 


[Apr.  i8,  1896.] 
THE    NEW    BIBLE    AND    THE    CHILDREN. 

The  editor  of  The  Outlook,  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott,  has 
been  studying  the  question,  how  to  teach  the  Bible  to 
children,  since  he  has  accepted  "the  results  of  criticism;" 
and  being  puzzled,  no  doubt,  over  the  knotty  question, 
he  has  called  to  his  aid  the  venerable  Dean  Farrar.  The 
latter  responds  in  The  Outlook  for  March  21  with  an 
article  which  he  introduces  in  the  following  words : 

The  editor  asks  me  to  say  a  few  words  upon  a  subject  of 
real  and  urgent  importance — "the   right   way  of   presenting  the 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  143 

Bible  to  the  young  in  the  light  of  the  higher  criticism."  I 
gladly  accede  to  his  request,  because  an  unwise  or  unfaithful 
way  of  dealing  with  the  facts  forced  upon  us  by  the  advance  of 
knowledge  may  be  prolific  of  deplorable  results. 

When  I  read  this  introckiction,  and  saw  that  the 
essay  following  fills  more  than  five  of  the  very  broad 
columns  of  TJic  Outlook,  I  expected  to  find  an  elaborate 
discussion  of  the  urgent  and  important  inquiry,  and  I 
was  not  a  little  curious  to  know  what  the  answer  could 
be.  What  was  my  surprise,  then,  on  reading  the  five 
columns  through,  to  find  scarcely  a  dozen  lines  in  which 
there  is  even  an  attempt  to  answer  the  question  of  the 
editor.  All  the  rest  is  devoted  to  a  defense  of  the  con- 
clusions of  the  advanced  critics,  and  to  denunciation  of 
those  who  refuse  to  accept  them.  Nearly  all  the  matter 
in  the  essay  is  such  as  any  disciple  of  the  school  in  this 
country  might  have  furnished  by  copying  from  Briggs, 
Smith,  Bacon,  Harper  &  Co.  I  will  call  attention  here- 
after to  some  of  the  points  which  he  presents,  but  now 
I  must  show  how^  he  answers  the  question  in  hand. 

First,  he  insists  that  "we  should  be  profoundly  and 
unswervingly  truthfid" — a  statement  to  which  all  honest 
teachers  of  children  can  respond  with  a  hearty  Amen. 
Then  he  says :  "We  are  not  bound  to  teach  children  all 
we  know,  but  we  are  most  solemnly  bound  not  to  teach 
them  anything  which  we  feel  to  be  doubtful  as  though 
it  were  certain,  and  still  more  are  we  bound  not  to  teach 
them  anything  of  which  we  ourselves  begin  to  suspect 
the  reality."  Again  can  we  respond.  Amen ;  but  we  can 
see  the  author  here  leaves  a  big  hole  through  which  t(^ 
creep  out,  and  leaves  the  children  entirely  ignorant  of 
those  tremendous  discoveries  which  have  made  the  Bible 
so  much  more  precious  to  him  and  his  confreres  than  it 
ever  was  before.     If  thev  have  had  this  effect  on  them, 


144  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

why  not  tell  all  to  the  children,  and  make  the  Bible  more 
precious  to  them,  also  ?  Ought  not  the  children  be  taught 
to  love  the  Bible? 

In  the  next  paragraph  he  dodges  the  issue,  by  say- 
ing: "Into  a  vast  part  of  our  teaching,  by  far  the  largest 
and  most  important  part  of  it,  no  question  of  the  higher 
criticism  enters  at  all."  Well,  if  this  be  true,  that  is  not 
the  part  to  which  the  editor's  inquiry  refers.  He  wants 
to  know,  and  we  all  want  to  know,  how  such  men  as 
Dean  Farrar  would  teach  the  children  in  that  other  and 
smaller  part.  Why  is  there  no  explicit  answer  here? 
And  then,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  answer  given  is  not 
only  evasive,  but  rather  disingenuous.  What  part  of  the 
Bible  does  the  Dean  suppose  himself  to  be  teaching  when 
he  speaks  of  the  largest  part  of  the  teaching  as  not  being 
connected  with  questions  of  criticism?  There  is  scarcely 
a  book  in  the  Old  Testament  into  which  these  questions 
do  not  enter,  even  to  the  very  heart  of  them  ;  there  are 
few  leading  facts  whose  historicity  is  not  challenged ; 
and  in  the  New  Testament  the  reputed  authorship  of 
many  documents  is  denied.  How  can  he  teach  the  chil- 
dren ''truthfully^'  if  he  leaves  them  to  the  false  ideas 
inherited  from  their  fathers  in  regard  to  all  these  mat- 
ters ? 

But  the  Dean  approaches  the  issue  more  closely  in 
another  passage,  after  which  he  leaves  it  finally.  He 
says :  "Does  a  child  fail  to  grasp  the  meaning  of  the 
parables  of  Christ  though  he  is  told  that  these  are  not 
necessarily  founded  on  real  incidents,  but  are  'tales  with 
a  purpose'  ?  Why,  then,  should  it  be  different  with  the 
stories — say  of  Balaam  and  Jonah?"  Here  there  is  an- 
other evasion.  The  question  is  not  whether  the  meaning 
of  a  story  is  lost  when  it  is  said  to  be  a  fictitious  one, 
but  whether  it  is  wise  to  tell  the  child  that  the  incidents 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  145 

of  the  parables  are  not  real,  and  that  the  facts  related  of 
Jonah  and  Balaam  never  transpired.  And  why  stop  with 
Balaam  and  Jonah?  Rather,  why  begin  with  them? 
Why  not  begin  at  the  beginning,  and  say  the  same  of 
Adam  and  Eve;  of  the  fall;  of  Cain  and  Abel;  of  Xoah 
and  the  flood;  of  Abraham;  of  Moses  and  the  plagues 
of  Egypt,  and  on  through  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment? Why  not  tell,  if  not  all  you  know,  at  least  that 
which  is  so  necessary  to  a  right  appreciation  of  these  old 
"stories"?  Is  it  because  the  Dean  is  fearful  that  this 
method  would  be  "prolific  of  deplorable  results"?  How 
pitiful  to  see  a  great  man  tied  down  to  a  theory  about 
the  Book  of  God,  which  he  dares  not  teach  to  his  neigh- 
bor's children,  or  to  his  own  grandchildren,  for  fear  of 
"deplorable  results."  For  my  own  part,  I  can  not  recall 
a  single  conception  which  I  entertain  about  the  Bible, 
any  part  of  it,  which  I  am  in  the  least  afraid  to  impart 
to  the  young.     For  this  I  thank  God,  and  in  it  I  take 


[June  13,  1896.] 

OLD  TRUTH   AND   NEW  TRUTH. 

President  Harper  has  an  editorial  in  the  Biblieal 
World,  beginning  in  the  April  number,  and  continued 
in  the  May  number,  showing  how  one  class  of  men 
array  themselves  in  favor  of  old  truth  and  another  class 
in  favor  of  new  truth;  and  how  they  often  denounce 
each  the  position  of  the  other.  He  deprecates  this 
denunciation,  and  the  purpose  of  the  article  is  to  dis- 
suade men  from  it.  It  is  easy  to  see  what  led  him  into 
this  train  of  thought.  He  regards  himself,  in  his  advo- 
cacy of  the  new  criticism,  as  a  lover  of  new  truth,  and 
he  wishes  to  silence  those  who  speak  of  him  as  an  advo- 


146  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

cate  of  dangerous  error.  He  is  willing,  if  the  opposition 
will  consent,  to  enter  into  a  kind  of  compromise,  by 
which  he  will  concede  to  his  opponents  the  title  of  advo- 
cates for  old  truth,  provided  they  will  call  him  and  his 
party  the  friends  of  new  truth. 

The  device  is  too  thin.  The  issue  is  such  that  if 
either  party  is  right,  the  other  is  wrong.  This  will  appear 
very  clearly  if  we  consider  one  of  his  own  illustrations. 
It  is  an  antithetical  statement  which  he  quotes  from  some 
one,  "The  Bible  is  inspired  of  God  according  to  Paul, 
but  it  is  the  work  of  ignorant  and  unskillful  redactors 
according  to  Wellhausen."  Here,  according  to  our  editor, 
instead  of  an  antithesis  between  a  truth  and  an  untruth, 
we  have  something  quite  different ;  that  is,  two  state- 
ments that  are  complementary  to  one  another.  He  makes 
out  the  case  in  the  following  words : 

Paul  looks  at  the  finished  product  and  at  the  work  which 
it  has  accomplished  in  the  world,  at  the  spirit  which  breathes 
forth  from  it,  at  the  destiny  which  awaits  it.  The  critical 
scholar  studies  it  from  the  scientific  point  of  view,  its  beginnings, 
its  form,  the  characteristics  and  knowledge  of  the  men  who  were 
the  instruments  of  its  production,  the  phenomena  of  the  periods 
in  which  its  particular  books  were  produced,  the  various  processes 
through  which  it  has  passed.  And  when  we  realize  all  that  is 
involved  in  the  latter,  need  we  feel  that  the  argument  for  the 
former  is  weakened? 

What  does  all  this  parade  of  words  and  clauses 
amount  to  ?  Nothing  but  an  attempt  to  show  that  when 
a  man  says  with  Paul  that  the  Bible  is  inspired  of  God, 
he  is  uttering  an  old  truth,  and  that  when  Wellhausen 
says  it  is  the  work  of  ignorant  and  unskillful  redactors, 
this  is  a  new  truth ;  and  that  there  is  no  antagonism 
between  the  two.  Wellhausen  himself  would  repudiate 
the  attempt  with  scorn.  That  which  he  means  by  his 
statement   of   the   origin   of   the    Bible   excludes    divine 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  147 

inspiration,  as  he  is  frank  enoug"!!  to  tell  us;  so  if  he  is 
right,  his  new  truth  stands  in  direct  opposition  to  Paul's 
old  error.  W'ellhausen  is  not  a  trimmer  like  President 
Harper.  I  suppose  that,  according  to  the  latter,  when  I 
say  that  the  Pentateuch  came  from  Moses,  and  he  says 
that  it  was  composed  a  thousand  years  after  the  death 
of  Moses,  the  difference  is  only  this,  that  I  am  contend- 
ing for  an  old  truth,  and  he  for  a  new  one  :  that  is,  it 
is  an  old  truth  that  it  did  come  from  Moses,  and  it  is  a 
new  truth  that  it  did  not.  A  great  deal  of  the  President's 
recent  writing  is  of  this  character ;  and  for  my  part,  I 
admire  him  more  when  he  comes  right  out,  as  in  his 
lectures  on  Genesis  than  when  he  blows  hot  and  cold  with 
the  same  breath.  "I  would  that  ye  were  either  hot  or 
cold." 


[July  4.   1896.] 

WHY  ABRAM  WEXT  TO  CANAAN. 

Prof.  David  Gordon  Lyon,  Ph.  D.,  of  Harvard  Uni- 
versity, knows  more  about  Abram  than  the  Bible  does. 
He  says,  in  an  article  in  the  Biblical  W^orld  for  June: 
"Political  changes  at  home  and  the  prospect  of  bettering- 
their  fortunes  in  the  West,  may  have  led  Abram  and 
Lot  to  turn  their  faces  toward  Canaan."  Again: 
"Abram  is  impelled  still  further  to  the  West  by  sublime 
faith  in  the  future,  and  into  the  land  of  Canaan  he  comes 
(Gen.  12).  He  comes,  we  may  suppose,  not  into  the 
region  that  was  utterly  unknown."  I  suppose  tliat  we 
may  suppose  that  he  had  heard  Horace  Greeley's  advice, 
"Go  West,  young  man,  and  grow  up  with  the  country.'* 
What  cares  this  Professor  for  the  statements  of  the 
Bible,  that  Abram  came  mto  Canaan  because  God  called 


148  SHORT  ESSAYS   IN 

him  thither,  and  that  "by  faith  he  obeyed,  and  went  out, 
not  knowing  whither  he  went"? 


[July  II,  1896.] 
THE    CRY,    "BACK    TO    CHRIST." 

Let  no  one  be  deceived  by  this  cry  when  it  comes 
from  rationahstic  sources.  There  is  a  meaning  in  it  quite 
different  from  that  which  we  are  apt  to  attach  to  it.  We 
are  apt  to  suppose  that  it  means  back  of  all  human  creeds 
and  rules  of  discipline  to  the  teaching  of  the  apostles  and 
of  Christ.  But  it  does  not  stop  there.  It  means,  also, 
back  of  the  apostles,  so  that  their  teaching  is  to  be  set 
aside  when  it  does  not  seem  to  be  supported  by  the  per- 
sonal teaching  of  Jesus.  Neither  does  it  stop  at  the  four 
Gospels  and  their  representation  of  what  Christ  taught. 
It  discriminates  between  what  they  have  incorrectly  re- 
ported from  the  lips  of  Christ  and  what  he  actually  said. 
By  powers  of  discernment  which  none  but  an  expert 
modern  critic  boasts  of  possessing,  all  of  the  reported 
sayings  of  Christ  are  sifted,  the  accretions  and  miscon- 
structions of  the  Gospel  writers,  and  the  traditions  which 
they  followed,  are  cast  aside,  and  the  residue  is  the  teach- 
ing of  Christ.  The  cry  is,  back  to  that ;  and  back  to  that 
is  infidelity  and  religious  anarchy. 

Dr.  James  Stalker  has  well  expressed  the  essential 
part  of  the  sentiment  in  the  opening  paragraph  of  the 
leading  article  of  the  June  Expositor.     He  says: 

"Back  to  Christ !"  is  the  watchword  of  theology  at  the  pres- 
ent time ;  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  question,  what 
precisely  was  taught  by  Christ,  will  be  the  most  burning  theo- 
logical topic  of  the  first  decade  of  the  twentieth  century.  It 
seems  an  easy  thing  to  discover  what  Christ  taught,  for  in  the 
four  Gospels  all  his  words  are  contained  in  a  very  narrow  com- 
pass. .  .  .  The  question,  however,  has  been  raised,  Are  we  sure 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  149 

that  all  the  words  attributed  to  our  Lord  in  the  Gospels  are 
really  his ;  or,  as  we  read,  do  we  require  to  exercise  caution 
and  criticism? 

If  we  once  cast  aside  the  inspiration  which  Christ 
promised  his  apostles,  if  he  did  promise  it,  if  those 
promises  of  it  are  not  spurious  additions  to  his  words, 
and  if  we  also  cast  aside  their  claim  of  an  infallible 
inspiration,  as  has  now  become  the  fashion,  what  have 
we  left  to  guarantee  the  certainty  that  anything  quoted 
from  him  in  the  Gospels  actually  came  from  his  lips? 
Nothing,  absolutely  nothing,  except  the  judgment  of  the 
modern  critic,  and  that,  in  such  a  connection,  is  not  worth 
a  snap  of  my  finger. 

Back  to  Christ  let  us  go ;  but  let  us  not  forget  that 
when  we  reach  the  writings  of  his  apostles,  whom  he 
authorized  to  speak  in  his  name,  and  qualified  to  speak 
with  absolute  authority,  w^e  have  gone  back  to  him. 


[July  II.   1896.] 

SOME    CRUDITIES    OF    CRITICISM. 

The  writer  of  an  article  in  the  Expositor  for  May 
says  that  the  city  of  Jezreel,  having  been  polluted  by 
the  foul  worship  of  Baal,  "became  accursed,  and  was 
destroyed  with  terrible  vengeance  by  Jehu."  He  con- 
founds the  destruction  of  the  house  of  Ahab  with  the 
destruction  of  the  city  in  which  Jehoram  and  Jezebel 
were  slain.  Jezreel  is  now  a  ruin,  but  there  is  nothing 
in  the  sacred  text  about  its  destruction  by  Jehti  or  any 
one  else. 

Wendt,  in  his  ''Teaching  of  Jesus,"  expresses  the 
opinion  that  Luke  did  not  borrow  from  Matthew — at 
least,  not  much — and  he  gives  as  a  reason  that  "St.  Luke 
was  particularly   shy   and   suspicious   of   St.   Matthew\" 


150  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

And  yet  this  same  Wendt  has  been  held  up  to  the  readers 
of  some  papers  in  this  country  as  a  writer  noted  for  his 
''sturdy  ortliodoxy."  He  also  says  of  Jesus  that,  at  the 
beginning  of  his  ministry,  "he  was  neither  recognized  by 
others  as  the  Messiah  nor  expressly  known  to  be  such 
by  himself."  I  wonder  what  he  thought  was  meant  by 
the  voice  from  heaven  at  his  baptism.  And  what  did  he 
think  of  himself  when  in  the  synagogue  in  Nazareth  he 
read  from  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  and  said :  "This  day 
hath  this  scripture  been  fulfilled  in  your  ears"?  Oh, 
well,  it  is  very  easy  for  a  man  like  Wendt  to  toss  aside 
as  unhistorical  any  passage  of  Scripture  that  does  not 
suit  his  notions ;  and  what  is  the  use  to  reason  with 
such  men? 


[Aug.  I,  1896.] 
CATCH-PHRASES. 

To  fall  in  with  every  catch-phrase  which  goes  whirl- 
ing through  the  air  betrays  a  want  of  thought.  It  is  too 
common  among  preachers  and  newspaper  writers.  We 
hear  a  great  deal  lately  of  "Applied  Christianity."  Have 
those  who  have  caught  up  this  phrase  paused  to  think 
what  it  implies?  If  they  have,  then  they  are  convicted 
of  having  in  mind  a  Christianity  which  is  not  applied. 
There  may  be  theories  about  Christianity  which  are  not 
applied,  but  they  are  as  far  from  Christianity  as  a  theory 
about  farming  is  from  farming.  Drop  the  phrase,  and 
repudiate  its  implication. 

Another  of  these  catch-phrases  is,  ''The  Christ 
Spirit."  What  does  this  mean?  I  suppose  it  is  intended 
to  mean  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  This  last  expression  occurs 
twice  in  the  Scriptures  (Rom.  8:9;  i  Pet.  i:  11),  but  in 
both  instances,  as  the  context  plainly  shows,  it  means  the 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  151 

Spirit  of  God.  If  this  is  what  is  meant  by  the  phrase, 
why  not  say  so,  instead  of  adopting  an  expression  which 
is  both  unscriptural  and  ungrammatical  ?  President  Loos 
has  of  late  very  effectually  rebuked  the  use  of  the  noun 
disciple  as  an  adjective  in  the  phrase,  Disciple  Church; 
it  is  a  blunder  of  the  same  kind  to  use  the  official  title 
Christ  as  an  adjective  in  the  phrase,  Christ  Spirit.  Keep 
your  heads  level,  brethren,  and  don't  be  dazzled  by  every 
fad  in  thought  and  expression  which  happens  to  be  float- 
ing about.  It  is  a  w^holesome  rule  to  call  Bible  things  by 
Bible  names ;  there  is  a  volume  of  wisdom  in  it. 


[Aug.  29.  1896.] 

"WHAT    OF    IT?" 

From  a  recent  article  I  extract  the  following  passage : 

A  man  tells  me  that  he  does  not  believe  that  Moses  wrote 
the  Pentateuch.  He  has  been  compelled  to  surrender  the  tradi- 
tional faith  on  that  question.  He  believes  that  there  were  two 
Isaiahs,  and  that  a  gap  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  yawns 
between  the  thirty-ninth  and  fortieth  chapters  of  Isaiah's  proph- 
ecies, so  that  they  could  not  have  been  written  by  one  man.  He 
believes  that  Deuteronomy  was  written  in  the  eighth  century 
B.  C,  and  that  Leviticus  did  not  assume  its  present  form  till 
after  the  captivity,  a  thousand  years  after  Moses.  What  of  it? 
If  this  man  says  he  can  not  listen  to  the  old-fashioned  tradi- 
tional preaching  that  ignores  or  disputes  the  findings  of  the  best 
scholarship  of  the  age.  he  has  missed  the  nature  and  purpose  of 
criticism  so  far  as  Christian  life  and  duty  are  concerned.  Xo 
matter  who  wrote  the  Pentateuch  or  when  it  was  written, 
whether  there  were  two  Isaiahs  or  four  or  forty,  it  is  our  busi- 
ness, all  the  same,  to  follow  Christ,  and  discharge  every  duty  he 
lays  upon  us. 

If  the  man  to  whose  objection  this  is  a  response  is  a 
man  of  sense,  he  will  not  be  put  off  in  this  way.  He  will 
respond  that,  in  being  compelled  to  surrender  the  tradi- 


152  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

tional  belief  that  Moses  is  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch, 
he  has  been  compelled  to  believe  that  the  Pentateuch  con- 
tains a  very  large  number  of  false  statements  about  its 
own  origin,  and  that  the  Lord  Jesus,  together  with  all 
of  his  apostles,  believed  and  taught  what  was  false  in 
regard  to  it.  He  will,  therefore,  demand,  as  a  condition 
of  following  Christ,  that  the  author  of  this  article,  or 
some  other  man  who  believes  as  he  does,  shall  show  him 
how  to  follow  a  Christ  who  spoke  erroneously  on  a  mat- 
ter of  fact  so  simple.  As  to  Isaiah,  if  he  has  decided 
that  the  last  twenty-six  chapters  of  that  book  were  not 
written  by  Isaiah,  but  by  an  unknown  man  who  lived 
one  hundred  and  fifty  years  later,  he  will  want  to  know 
how  he  can  implicitly  follow  teachers  like  Christ  and  his 
apostles  who  quote  passages  from  those  chapters,  and 
say  that  Isaiah  wrote  them.  Can  the  writer  of  this 
article  meet  these  demands?  If  he  can,  it  would  be  far 
better  and  wiser  for  him  to  do  so  than  to  indulge  in  the 
mere  gabble  of  saying,  "No  matter  who  wrote  the  Penta- 
teuch or  when  it  was  written,  whether  there  were  two 
Isaiahs  or  four  or  forty,  it  is  our  business  all  the  same 
to  follow  Christ."  I  think  we  have  had  enough  of  this 
kind  of  loose  talk.  It  is  time  that  some  of  the  men  who 
thus  talk  were  meeting  the  real  issue  as  to  the  bearing 
of  their  skeptical  theories  on  the  Christian  faith. 


[Oct.  10,  1896.] 

DR.  YOUNG,    OF    DANVILLE. 

In  the  recent  death  of  the  president  of  Centre  Col- 
lege, our  State  of  Kentucky  has  lost  one  of  its  most  dis- 
tinguished scholars,  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  lost  one 
of  its  most  useful  men,  and  the  cause  of  true  Biblical 
criticism  one  of  its  most  stalwart  defenders.     He  took  a 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  153 

leading  part  in  the  prosecution  of  Professor  Briggs 
before  the  General  Assembly,  and  the  friends  of  the 
Bible  owe  much  to  him  for  putting  a  serious  check  upon 
a  heresy  which  would  have  spread  much  further  and 
more  rapidly  had  it  been  tolerated  by  that  influential 
body.  Only  fifty-four  years  of  age  at  the  time  of  his 
death,  with  good  health  his  usefulness  might  have  been 
prolonged  many  years,  but  God  has  ordered  it  otherwise. 
To  his  will  we  bow. 


[Nov.  21,  1896.] 

"JESUS    AND    JONAH"    IN    SCOTLAND. 

The  Critical  Rcviczi',  published  by  T.  &  T.  Clark  in 
Edinburgh,  and  edited  by  Prof.  S.  D.  F.  Salmond,  stands 
in  the  front  rank  of  critical  journals  in  Great  Britain.  It 
is  devoted  exclusively  to  reviews  of  books  and  magazine 
articles  on  criticism  and  philosophy.  Its  editor  is  asso- 
ciated w^ith  Professors  Driver,  Sanday,  Briggs  and  others 
in  getting  out  "The  International  Theological  Library," 
of  which  a  number  of  volumes  have  already  been  pub- 
lished. The  October  number  of  his  Rcz'iezc  contains  an 
editorial  notice  of  my  little  book,  "Jesus  and  Jonah," 
which  closes  with  the  following  statements : 

The  book  is  a  strong  defense  of  the  literal,  historical  char- 
acter of  the  story  of  Jonah  in  all  its  parts.  In  attempting  to 
make  this  good,  however,  the  author  takes  it  too  easily  to  be  the 
case  that  we  have  "the  solemn  assertion"  of  the  Lord  himself 
that  "the  leading  incidents  are  real  transactions." 

Similar  notices  have  appeared  in  other  journals  on 
the  "critical"  side;  notably,  in  the  Interior,  of  Chicago. 
They  are  self-contradictory.  The  main  theme  of  the 
book  is  to  show  that  we  have  the  solemn  assertion  of  our 
Lord  himself  that  the  leading  incidents  in  the  story  of 


154  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Jonah  are  real  transactions;  and  if  "it  takes  this  too 
easily  to  be  the  case,"  it  is  a  weak  defense,  instead  of 
being  a  strong  one,  as  they  concede.  I  have  been  very 
solicitous  that  some  one  of  them  would  undertake  a 
refutation  of  my  argument,  and  I  took  pains  to  challenge 
the  eight  scholars  whose  symposium  is  reviewed  in  the 
book  to  the  undertaking.  I  also  threw  this  challenge 
open  to  any  other  competent  scholar  who  might  see  fit 
to  accept  it ;  but  thus  far  not  one  has  been  found  to  take 
lip  the  gauntlet.  I  gave  this  challenge,  and  I  now  repeat 
it,  not  for  the  purpose  of  boasting,  but  because  I  very 
well  know  that  a  man  can  never  be  sure  how  well  an 
argument  which  he  has  made  can  stand  the  test  of  criti- 
cism until  the  test  had  been  applied.  While  my  confi- 
dence in  the  argument  is  solid,  it  is  not  overwhelming. 
I  am  willing  to  give  it  up  if  it  can  be  proved  fallacious; 
but  so  long  as  this  is  not  done,  or  even  attempted,  I  shall 
be  incapable  of  accepting  the  "critical  view,"  or,  rather, 
any  of  the  many  "critical  views,"  of  our  Lord's  words  on 
this  subject. 

If  the  writers  to  whom  I  allude  had  taken  the  ground 
that  the  argument  of  the  book  is  so  weak  as  to  be 
unworthy  of  their  notice,  I  would  have  kept  quiet ;  but 
as  they  have  conceded  its  strength,  they  can  not  make 
this  plea,  and  the  cause  of  truth,  I  must  insist,  demands 
an  attempt  at  refutation.  I  thought  surely  that  if  a 
scholar  of  Professor  Salmond's  well-known  ability 
should  see  fit  to  notice  the  book  at  all,  he  would  have 
refuted  the  main  argument  if  he  saw  his  way  clear  to 
do  so. 

I  especially  refer,  in  these  remarks,  to  one  line  of 
argument  which  I  have  emphasized  as  no  other  writer 
has  within  the  range  of  my  reading.  It  is  the  argument 
that  Jesus,  as  a  man  of  absolute  truth,  could  not  say  that 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  155 

a  certain  event  took  place  unless  he  knew  that  it  had. 
He  could  not,  for  instance,  say  that  Jonah  was  in  the 
bowels  of  the  fish  unless  he  knew  that  he  was.  He 
makes  this  solemn  assertion  and  he  makes  it  the  basis  of 
a  prediction  respecting  himself:  "As  Jonah  was  three 
days  and  three  nights  in  the  bowels  of  the  fish,  so  the 
Son  of  man  shall  be  in  the  heart  of  the  earth."  He  also 
says  that  the  men  of  Xineveh  repented  at  the  preaching- 
of  Jonah,  and  he  could  not  have  said  this  unless  he  knew 
it  to  be  true. 

I  hope  that  some  one  will  yet,  in  the  interest  of  truth, 
undertake  to  refute  my  argument. 


[Xov.  14.  1896.] 

OSHUA'S  SPEECH  TO  THE  SUN  AXD  ^lOON. 

There  are  men  who  are  willing  to  believe  in  the 
occurrence  of  miracles,  provided  they  are  not  too  mi- 
raculous. They  can  believe  that  Jesus  healed  the  sick, 
and  that  possibly  he  stilled  the  tempest  on  the  lake  :  that 
is,  if  the  wind  was  not  blowing  too  hard  ;  but  when  it 
comes  to  causing  the  sun  and  moon  to  stand  still,  which 
we  now  know  involved  the  suspension  of  the  earth's 
rotary  motion,  it  is  too  much  for  their  frail  credulity. 
And  why?  li  they  would  only  stop  to  reason  about  it, 
they  could  see  that  it  is  as  easy  for  Almighty  powder  to 
work  one  miracle  as  another — as  easy  for  it  to  stop  the 
earth  in  its  revolution  on  its  axis  as  to  stop  a  fever  by 
a  word,  or  to  stop  the  wind  from  blowing — a  little  easier 
than  for  a  boy  spinning  a  top  to  stop  the  top.  The  onlv 
way  to  make  a  miracle  appear  incredible  is  to  show  that 
there  was  no  suitable  occasion  for  one.  There  is  true 
theology  in  the  representation  of  God  as  one 


156  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

"Who  sees  with  equal  eye  as  God  of  all, 
A  hero  perish,  or  a  sparrow  fall; 
Atoms   or   systems   into   ruin   hurled, 

And  now  a  bubble  burst,  and  now  a  world." 

Many  are  the  devices  by  which  men  who  do  not 
beheve  that  the  sun  and  moon  stood  still  at  the  com- 
mand of  Joshua,  and  who  yet  do  not  like  to  say  that 
the  story  is  a  downright  falsehood,  have  adopted  to 
explain  the  passage  which  records  it.  The  most  com- 
mon of  these  is  to  say  that  the  author  of  the  Book  of 
Joshua  quotes  the  Book  of  Jasher  as  his  authority  for 
the  story,  without  vouching  for  it  himself.  If  he  does 
this,  then  we  ought  to  be  informed  whether  the  story 
was  false  as  found  in  the  Book  of  Jasher;  and  if  it  was, 
somebody  ought  to  find  an  excuse  for  the  author  of 
Joshua  in  quoting  a  story  that  was  false  and  absurd. 
To  take  up  a  false  report  and  pass  it  on,  is  the  next 
thing  to  originating  it. 


[Nov.  14,  1896.] 

JOSHUA'S    COMMAND    TO    THE    SUN    AND 
MOON. 

Professor  Moulton,  in  his  volume  entitled  *' Judges," 
has  a  disposal  of  this  passage  in  Joshua  which  shows 
some  originality,  and  his  arrangement  of  it  has  sug- 
gested this  article.  Before  I  introduce  this  arrange- 
ment— for  it  is  an  arrangement  of  the  text,  and  not 
a  comment,  wdiich  shows  his  view  of  the  incident — I 
must  quote  the  passage,  and  request  the  reader  to  no- 
tice carefully  its  contents.  Here  it  is,  as  printed  in  the 
Revised  Version:  ''Then  spake  Joshua  to  Jehovah  in  the 
day  when  Jehovah  delivered  the  Amorites  before  the 
children  of  Israel : 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  157 

Sun,  stand  thou  still  upon  Gideon ; 

And  thou  moon  in  the  valley  of  Aijalon. 

And  the  sun  stood  still,  and  the  moon  stayed. 

Until   the  nation  had  avenged  themselves  of   their   enemies. 

Is  not  this  written  in  the  Hook  of  Jasher?  And  the  sun 
stayed  in  the  midst  of  heaven,  and  hasted  not  to  go  down 
about  a  whole  clay.  And  there  was  no  day  like  that 
before  it  or  after  it,  that  Jehovah  hearkened  to  the  voice 
of  a  man;  for  Jehovah  fought  for  Israel." 

A  mere  glance  at  the  passage  shows  that  it  divides 
itself  into  three  parts :  First,  what  Joshua  said ;  second, 
the  result,  that  the  sun  and  moon  did  as  he  commanded  ; 
third,  after  the  reference  to  the  Book  of  Jasher,  a  repeti- 
tion of  what  the  sun  did,  with  the  addition  of  the  length 
of  time  that  it  stood  still,  and  a  comment  on  the  unique 
character  of  that  day. 

Let  us  now  inquire  which  of  these  three  parts  was 
quoted,  if  any,  from  the  Book  of  Jasher.  If  it  is  the 
prose  part  which  follows  the  mention  of  this  book,  then 
the  preceding  part  is  written  on  the  authority  of  the 
author  of  Joshua,  and  he  makes  himself  responsible  for 
the  truth  of  the  story.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  that 
which  precedes  the  reference  to  Jasher  is  the  quotation, 
then  that  which  follows  is  an  indorsement  of  the  story 
by  the  author  of  Joshua  ;  and  there  is  no  possible  way 
of  relieving  him  from  responsibility.  Whatever  may  be 
intended,  therefore,  by  the  mention  of  the  Book  of 
Jasher,  our  author  stands  responsible  for  the  statement 
that  the  sun  and  moon  stood  still  at  the  command  of 
Joshua. 

We  are  now  prepared  for  Professor  ]\Ioulton's  treat- 
ment of  the  case.  He  prints  in  the  body  of  his  text  the 
lines  quoted  above  that  precede  the  mention  of  the  Book 
of  Jasher,  and  he  removes  to  a  foot-note,  which  he  prints 


158  SHORT   ESSAYS  IN 

in  small  type,  the  words,  "Is  not  this  written  in  the  Book 
of  Jasher?  And  the  sun  stood  still  in  the  midst  of 
heaven,  and  hasted  not  to  go  down  about  a  whole  day. 
And  there  was  no  day  like  that  before  or  after  it,  that 
the  Lord  hearkened  to  the  voice  of  a  man,  for  the  Lord 
fought  for  Israel."  By  enclosing  the  words  which  follow 
the  mention  of  the  Book  of  Jasher,  in  quotation  marks, 
he  indicates  that  these  are  the  quotation.  The  preceding 
part,  therefore,  which  is  not  distinguished  by  quotation 
marks,  he  must  ascribe  to  the  author  of  the  Book  of 
Joshua. 

It  is  now  apparent  that  in  whatever  way  we  look  at 
the  passage,  and  whatever  view  we  take  of  the  so-called 
quotation  from  Jasher,  the  author  does  not  depend  upon 
that  lost  work  as  his  authority  for  the  story,  but  affirms 
it  on  his  own  independent  authority.  This  seems  to  be 
conceded  by  Professor  Moulton  himself;  for  he  remarks, 
in  his  brief  introduction,  that  "even  Joshua,  in  the  thick 
of  the  battle  of  Gibeon,  breaks  out  into  the  ballad  of  the 
sun  and  moon  standing  still"  (p.  lo).  But  if  the  Pro- 
fessor here  means  by  "the  ballad"  the  whole  of  the  part 
which  he  prints  in  poetic  lines,  he  has  fallen  into  another 
mistake ;  for  while  Joshua  could  have  said,  in  plain  prose, 
or  in  poetry,  as  you  please  to  regard  it,  "Sun,  stand  thou 
still  upon  Gibeon,  and  thou  moon  on  the  valley  of  Aija- 
lon,"  he  could  not,  at  the  same  time,  have  said,  "And  the 
sun  stood  still,  and  the  moon  stayed  until  the  nation  had 
avenged  themselves  of  their  enemies."  This  last  could 
have  been  said  only  after  the  sun  had  quit  standing  still, 
and  the  first,  only  before  it  stopped  in  its  course.  The  two 
could  not  be  separated  by  less  than  the  whole  day ;  and 
they  are  really  separated  by  the  interval  between  the 
event  and  the  writing  of  the  Book  of  Joshua;  for 
undoubtedly  the  statement  that  the  two  luminaries  did 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  159 

stand  still  is  that  of  the  aiithof,  while  the  command  is 
that  of  Joshua. 

Now  a  word  about  the  quotation  from  the  Book  of 
Jasher.  The  affirmation  that  there  is  such  a  quotation 
has  always  appeared  to  me  to  be  entirely  without  justifi- 
cation. The  question,  "Is  not  this  written  in  the  Book 
of  Jasher?"  is  a  strong  affirmation  of  the  undeniable  fact 
that  it  was  so  w^ritten.  It  shows  that  this  Book  of  Jasher 
had  been  written  already,  or  at  least  a  part  of  it,  before 
the  Book  of  Joshua  was  written  :  that  it  was  a  book  well 
known  to  the  contemporaries  of  the  author  of  Joshua; 
and  that  it  contained  an  account  of  this  miracle.  It  is 
probable  also  that  the  writer  of  the  latter  book  thought 
that  he  would  strengthen  himself  with  his  first  readers 
in  recording  the  story  by  the  respect  which  they  had  for 
this  Book  of  Jasher.  For  aught  we  know^  seeing  that 
we  know^  almost  nothing  of  it,  this  book  may  have  been 
as  authoritative  as  any  of  the  books  which  have  been 
preserved  in  our  Old  Testament,  and  therefore  worthy 
of  being  cited  in  support  of  a  statement  in  any  of  the 
latter.  But  be  that  as  it  may.  the  writer  of  Joshua,  as 
we  have  clearly  showed  above,  commits  himself  fully  to 
the  truth  of  the  narration,  and  those  wdio  are  not  willing 
to  believe  that  the  sun  actually  stood  still  can  not  shield 
their  incredulity  by  hiding  behind  ^Ir.  Jasher.  It  w^ould 
be  more  creditable  to  the  skeptic,  because  much  more 
candid,  to  come  right  out  and  say,  I  don't  believe  the 
story  at  all.  If  Joshua  said  anything  to  the  sun 
and  moon,  what  did  he  say?  If  they  did  anything 
after  he  spoke  to  them,  what  did  they  do?  What  did 
they  really  do,  and  what  did  he  say  to  them,  out  of  which 
the  present  story  could  have  grown  up  without  some 
barefaced  lying?  Let  us  be  candid,  and  hold  either  that 
there  is  a  lie  out,  or  that  the  storv  as  we  read  it  is  true. 


i6o  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

There  is  no  alternative  which  can  stand  the  test  of  com- 
mon sense.  Let  us  use  our  common  sense,  if  we  have 
any,  and  if  we  have  none,  let  us  talk  at  any  rate  as  if 
we  had  a  little. 


[Apr.  3,  1897.] 
THE    LETTER    THAT    KILLETH. 

Just  once  in  the  course  of  hisAvritings  Paul  makes 
the  declaration  that  "the  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit  giv- 
eth  life"  (2  Cor.  3:7)  ;  and  no  remark  that  he  ever  made 
has  been  applied  in  a  greater  number  of  unlicensed  ways. 
Ha  man  insists  upon  preserving  some  ordinance  in  the 
very  form  of  its  original  appointment,  such  an  ordinance 
as  baptism  or  the  Lord's  Supper,  for  example,  he  is 
accused  of  contending  for  the  letter  that  killeth,  while 
the  man  who  makes  the  charge,  and  who  changes  the 
ordinance,  claims  that  he  is  following  the  spirit  that 
giveth  life.  All  of  that  large  class  of  writers  who  make 
free  with  the  Scriptures  while  claiming  to  reverence  their 
authority,  employ  this  device  to  excuse  their  departures 
from  the  word  of  God,  while  those  who  remonstrate 
with  them  for  their  license  are  denounced  as  literalists, 
or  sticklers  for  the  letter  that  killeth.  In  all  these 
instances  it  seems  to  be  claimed  that  if  you  stick  close 
to  the  ordinance  as  Christ  gave  it,  you  will  kill  somebody. 
The  last  example  that  attracted  my  attention  was  in 
connection  with  the  number  of  elders  that  should  be 
appointed  in  a  church.  The  writer  says :  'Tt  has  been 
thought  to  be  a  greater  evil  to  have  a  congregation  with- 
out a  plurality  of  elders  than  to  have  an  eldership  with- 
out the  requisite  qualifications ;"  and  he  adds :  "This  is 
to  do  violence  to  the  spirit  of  the  New  Testament  in  an 
effort  to  be  loyal  to  its  letter."     But  which,  in  this  case. 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  i6i 

is  the  letter,  and  which  is  the  spirit;'  To  have  a  plurahty 
of  elders  is  certainly  the  letter  of  the  New  Testament; 
that  is,  it  is  the  literal  requirement ;  and  the  literal 
requirement  also  is  to  have  elders  of  prescribed  qualifica- 
tions. Where,  then,  is  the  spirit  as  distinguished  from 
the  letter?  Echo  answers,  Where?  The  writer  was  so 
in  the  habit  of  using  this  favorite  expression  where  he 
wished  to  justify  a  departure  from  Scripture  precedent 
that  he  evidently  applied  it  in  this  instance  from  pure 
habit  and  without  thought.  The  watchful  reader  will 
have  seen  many  examples  of  the  kind. 

But  wdiat  does  Paul  mean  by  the  statement  in  ques- 
tion ?  Wq  have  only  to  glance  at  the  connection  in  which 
it  occurs  to  see.  He  says :  "God  made  us  sufficient  as 
ministers  of  a  new  covenant,  not  of  the  letter,  but  of  the 
Spirit;  for  the  letter  killeth,  but  the  Spirit  giveth  life. 
But  if  the  ministration  of  death,  written  and  engraven 
in  stones,  came  with  glory,  so  that  the  children  of  Israel 
could  not  steadfastly  look  upon  the  face  of  Closes  for 
the  glory  of  his  face,  which  glory  was  passing  away; 
how  shall  not  rather  the  ministration  of  the  Spirit  be 
with  glory?"  Here  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  by  the  letter 
that  killeth  he  means  the  law  of  Aloses,  which,  as  he  had 
abundantly  argued  elsewhere,  could  not  give  life,  but 
brought  under  condemnation  those  that  were  under  it ; 
and  that  by  the  Spirit  he  means  the  new^  covenant  in 
Christ,  which  alone  can  give  life.  Ixlen  who  are  teachers 
in  Israel  ought  to  know  this,  and  they  ought  to  govern 
themselves  accordingly.  They  ought  to  at  once  abandon 
the  habit  of  perverting  by  misapplication  this  language 
of  the  apostle. 


i62  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

[Dec.  12,  1896.] 
HUNTING    A    PLACE    FOR    THE    BIBLE. 

There  is  no  more  hopeful  sign  of  these  times  than  the 
newly  awakened  and  intense  desire  to  find  a  place  and  a 
time  for  the  systematic  study  of  the  Bible.  Occurring 
just  after  the  banishment  of  the  Bible  from  the  public 
schools  and  from  all  State  universities,  a  banishment  as 
absolute  as  if  the  book  was  full  of  poison  for  the  souls 
of  the  young,  it  seeks  not  merely  to  find  a  remedy  for 
that  great  evil,  but  to  give  to  the  study  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  an  importance  in  public  opinion  that  it  has 
never  heretofore  enjoyed. 

It  is  only  one  branch  of  this  great  subject  which  I 
wish  to  discuss  in  this  article,  the  study  of  the  Bible  by 
candidates  for  the  Christian  ministry.  Strange  to  say, 
while  all  earnest  educators  are  now  agreed  that  a  good 
knowledge  of  the  English  Bible  should  be  possessed  by 
every  man  who  goes  forth  to  preach  the  gospel,  they 
have  as  yet  found  no  place  or  time  for  this  study  in  the 
courses  of  either  the  college  or  theological  seminary. 
This  may  surprise  the  uninitiated,  who  are  apt  to  imagine 
that  the  supreme  purpose  of  a  theological  school  is  to 
impart  to  young  men  a  knowledge  of  the  Book  of  which 
they  are  to  be  the  world's  teachers.  If  in  a  normal 
school  students  were  not  made  familiar  with  the 
branches  which  they  are  expected  to  teach  ;  if  in  a  law 
school  they  were  not  required  to  become  proficient  in 
Blackstone's  commentaries ;  or  if  in  a  medical  college 
they  were  not  made  familiar  with  anatomy  and  materia 
mcdica,  such  schools  would  be  pronounced  worthless ;  yet 
theological  schools  are  permitted  to  go  on  from  genera- 
tion to  generation  sending  out  men  to  teach  the  word  of 
God  who  know  very  little  of  its  contents.     It  is  a  mourn- 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  163 

fill  fact  that  preachers  as  a  class  know  less  of  the  Bible 
in  proportion  to  what  is  expected  of  them,  and  to  what 
is  actually  believed  of  them  by  the  masses,  than  any  other 
class  of  religions  men  or  women  in  this  country.  This 
defect  unfits  them  for  the  efficient  work  which  is  of  right 
expected  of  them,  and  it  accounts  largely  for  the  vast 
amount  of  feeble  and  false  teaching  which  is  heard  in 
our  pulpits.  It  accounts,  too,  for  the  want  of  apostolic 
zeal  and  godliness,  and  for  the  abundance  of  selfish 
ambition,  which  are  discernible  in  the  ministry  of  the 
day.  It  may  be  set  down  as  a  fixed  law  in  the  kingdom 
that  the  more  knowledge  a  preacher  possesses,  the  more 
dangerous  he  is  in  the  pulpit,  if  he  has  not  a  good  knowl- 
edge of  his  Bible. 

I  have  been  led  to  these  reflections,  and  to  the  writing 
of  this  article,  by  reading  a  recent  essay  in  the  Biblical 
World  from  the  pen  of  Prof.  Owen  H.  Gates,  of  Oberlin 
Theological  Seminary.  He  says  that  candidates  for  ad- 
mission to  the  theological  seminaries  diflfer  widely  in 
their  knowledge  of  the  Bible,  and  he  divides  them  in  this 
respect  into  three  classes,  which  he  describes  in  the  fol- 
lowing words : 

Some  students  possess  a  good  elementary  knowledge  of  the 
Scriptures.  They  can  turn  readily  to  any  book,  and  they  know 
what  they  will  find  there.  They  can  locate  and  quote  the  classical 
passages  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  They  know  some- 
thmg  of  the  course  of  the  history  of  Israel  and  of  th:  life  of 
Christ,  and  are  reasonably  familiar  with  the  Pentateuch,  the 
Psalms  and  the  Acts.  Others,  perhaps  recently  converted,  appear 
to  find  Bible  study  a  novelty.  They  are  interested  and  apprecia- 
tive, and  it  is  a  pleasure  to  teach  them  ;  but  the  charm  is  much 
such  as  surrounds  children  confronted  with  new  and  strange  ob- 
jects. One  is  curious  to  know  how  the  thought  will  strike  them. 
By  far  the  largest  number  of  students,  however,  are  found  in  a 
third  class.  They  are  not  surprised  at  what  they  hear;  they 
have  heard  the  most  of  it  before.     They  arc  vaguely  conscious 


i64  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

that  they  have  been  present  somev/here  at  some  time  when  this 
passage  or  that  person  was  the  subject  of  remark.  And  yet 
when  a  test  question  is  put  to  them  their  answer  is  unsatis- 
factory. 

This  showing  would  not  be  so  bad  if  all  these  students 
were  about  to  be  placed,  on  entering  the  seminary,  under 
instruction  by  which  they  would  soon  acquire  the  knowl- 
edge in  which  they  are  so  deficient.     But  this  is  not  pro- 
posed.    Fully  as  Professor  Gates  realizes  the  defect,  he 
proposes  no   remedy  in  the   seminary.      He   says :   "The 
field   of   theological    study    is    constantly    widening,    and 
something  must  be  done  to  relieve  the  pressure."     If  that 
is  so,  there  is  of  course  no  chance  to  put  the  required 
Bible  study  in  the  seminary  course.     "The  dignity,"  he 
says,  "of  the  theological  course  must  be  maintained."     It 
is  implied  that  this  dignity  would  be  impaired  by  making 
Bible  study  a  part  of  the  seminary  course.     His  remedy 
is  to  crowd  it  into  the  college  course,  which  has  to  be 
taken  as  a  prerequisite  to  admission  into  the  seminary. 
And  this  brings  me  to   remark  that  many  colleges   are 
now  giving  Bible  instruction,  but  Professor  Gates  says, 
and  he  says  truly,  that  the  amount  of  instruction  which 
they  give  is  not,  as  a  rule,  "entitled  to  any  consideration 
in    the    seminary."      He   cites    as    a   typical    fact   that    a 
teacher  of  the  Bible  in  a  college  recently  said  to  him : 
"Of  course  one  can  not  refuse  to  pass  the  boys  in  their 
Bible  ;  that  would  make  the  study  obnoxious  to  them." 
And  I  can  add  that  the  most  of  the  colleges  that  have 
introduced  the  Bible  into  their  courses  make  it  a  volun- 
tary study,  and  require  the  class  in  it  to  meet  only  once 
a   week.      The   work   done,   therefore,   amounts   to   little 
more  than   that  of   an   advanced   class   in   the   Sunday- 
school. 

I  know  of  but  one  coUesre  in  the  United  States  that 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  165 

does  a  respectable  part  in  Biblical  instruction.  It  is  the 
College  of  Liberal  Arts  in  Kentucky  University.  It  has 
a  course  of  daily  recitations  for  eight  months  in  the 
Bible.  It  is  requisite  to  graduation,  and  students  are 
graded  in  it  as  closely  as  in  other  classes.  This  is  held 
by  the  authorities  of  that  college  to  be  the  minimum  of 
Bible  study  that  should  be  required  of  every  educated 
young  man,  whatever  is  to  be  his  occupation  in  life.  It 
is  very  far  from  being  adequate  for  those  who  are  to 
give  themselves  to  the  ministry. 

What,  then,  is  the  remedy?  Professor  Gates  pro- 
poses to  find  it  in  the  college  by  inducing  the  colleges  to 
provide  such  Bible  instruction  as  a  candidate  for  the 
seminary  should  have.  But  can  the  colleges  be  thus 
influenced?  If  they  should  desire  ever  so  earnestly  to 
do  this  work,  can  they  do  it?  If  the  field  of  theological 
study  is  constantly  widening,  as  Professor  Gates  asserts, 
what  of  the  field  of  literary  and  scientific  study  assigned 
to  the  colleges  ?  It  is  widening  still  more  rapidly ;  and 
the  colleges  are  being  compelled  to  increase  the  number 
of  elective  studies  in  order  not  to  overburden  the  courses 
requisite  to  the  bachelor's  degree.  I  think  that  the  col- 
lege faculties  will  say  with  one  voice,  that  it  is  impossible 
for  them  to  give  the  needed  relief.  In  my  opinion,  and 
I  have  studied  the  question  long  enough,  I  think,  to 
entitle  me  to  an  opinion,  it  can  be  furnished  only  by  the 
seminaries  :  and  they  will,  in  the  end,  be  compelled  to 
furnish  it. 

Our  College  of  the  Bible  is,  in  ordinary  parlance,  a 
theological  seminary.  It  gives  a  course  of  instruction  in 
sacred  history,  that  includes  all  the  history  in  the  Bible. 
The  historical  books  are  all  studied  in  regular  order,  and 
the  other  l30oks  are  gleaned  for  the  history  that  is  in 
them.     The  latter  history  is  viewed  in  its  proper  connec- 


l66  SHORT   ESSAYS  IN 

tion  with  the  former,  and  thus  the  prophetic,  the  poetical 
and  the  epistolary  writings  are  all  brought  before  the 
mind  of  the  student  in  their  historical  setting.  The  study 
is  as  thorough,  and  the  examinations  as  rigid,  as  in 
Homiletics  or  Exegesis.  The  method  of  instruction  is  a 
combination  of  lectures  and  recitations,  and  the  time 
required  is  three  years  and  a  half  of  daily  recitations.  I 
was  once  asked  by  a  theological  professor,  "How  do  you 
manage  to  get  that  much  Bible  study  into  your  course?" 
I  answered:  ''We  first  put  that  in,  and  then  find  what 
room  we  can  for  other  studies.  We  regard  this  as  the 
foundation  of  all  Biblical  study,  without  which  no  other 
can  be  successfully  prosecuted,  and  with  which  the  stu- 
dent is  prepared  to  take  up  any  other,  with  a  clear  under- 
standing as  to  what  he  is  doing.  It  is  this  peculiarity  of 
our  course  which  led  to  the  adoption  of  the  distinctive 
name,  'College  of  the  Bible.'  " 

We  have  now  watched  the  results  of  this  scheme  of 
study  for  thirty  years,  and  we  know  whereof  we  speak 
when  we  say  that  the  preachers  who  have  been  trained 
under  it  have  a  more  thorough  and  evenly  balanced 
knowledge  of  the  Scriptures,  and  a  better  command  of 
them  in  preaching  the  Word,  than  those  who  have  been 
educated  in  any  other  way.  They  are  to  be  found  in 
almost  every  State  of  our  Union ;  in  many  States  they 
constitute  a  very  large  element  of  the  preaching  force, 
and  they  are  equally  well  known  in  several  foreign  coun- 
tries, including  some  heathen  lands.  When  I  say,  then, 
that  the  seminaries,  and  only  they,  should  supply  the 
needed  instruction  in  the  Bible,  I  speak  not  theoretically, 
but  experimentally.  If  there  is  not  room  for  it  in  the 
present  curriculum,  instead  of  pushing  Bible  study  out 
through  the  lower  end,  it  is  far  better  to  push  something 
else  out  through  the  upper  end,  and  leave  the  latter  to 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  167 

be  studied  after  graduation.  It  is  not  necessary  for  the 
preacher  to  learn  everything  that  he  is  ever  to  know 
under  the  eye  of  a  pro  lessor.  Give  him  what  is  best  in 
his  three  years,  and  let  him  acquire  the  rest  as  best  he 
can.  All  in  whom  a  thirst  for  sacred  knowledge  has  been 
aroused  will  acquire  the  rest,  and  the  others  will  never 
master  it,  though  you  drag  them  through  it. 

Let  the  hunt  after  a  time  and  a  place  for  the  Bible 
go  on.  While  it  goes  on  it  shows  a  desire  for  better 
things,  and  when  the  hunt  is  ended  the  world  will  be 
blessed  with  better  preaching. 


[Dec.   19.   1896.] 

A    THIN    ARGUMEXT. 

To  believe  that  God  ehcts  a  man  because  he  foresees  that 
man  will  repent  and  believe,  is  to  make  a  farce  of  God's  election. 
In  such  a  case  a  man  elects  himself,  and  this  is  salvation  by- 
works. 

]\Ir.  IMcKinley  was  elected  President  because  those 
who  voted  for  him  foresaw  that  he  would  favor  sound 
money  and  a  high  tariff.  Did  this  make  his  election  a 
farce?  Did  he  elect  himself?  Did  he  save  himself  from 
defeat  by  his  future  works?  If  you  say  no  to  these 
questions,  why  say  the  opposite  in  the  case  of  God's 
election  of  men  to  eternal  life? 


[Dec.  26.  1896.1 
WELLHAUSEX'S    WRATH    KIXDLEO. 

Baxter's  review  of  Wellhausen's  "Prolegomena"  has 
occasioned  quite  a  controversy  between  him  and  a  gentle- 
man named  Peake,  of  Manchester,  England.  In  the 
December  number  of  the  Expository  Times,  the  period- 


i68  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

ical  in  which  the  discussion  has  been  pubhshed,  there 
appears  a  short  letter  from  Wellhausen  in  regard  to  it, 
which  reads  as  follows : 

I  feel  that  I  am  doing  what  is  quite  superfluous  in  stating- 
that  Professor  Peake  has  correctly  interpreted  the  aim  of  my 
"Prolegomena,"  and  that  Dr.  Baxter  has  not.  Baxter's  object  is 
not  to  understand,  but  to  refute,  me.  In  this  endeavor  he  can 
count  upon  a  circle  of  readers  who  detest  me,  and  never  soil 
their  hands  with  any  book  of  mine;  who  have  no  wish  to  learn 
to  know  me,  but  would  gladly  see  me  crushed.  What  a  pity  that 
in  the  present  age  I  can  no  longer  be  burned  at  the  stake !  In 
any  case  the  truth  would  not  be  burned  with  me. 

GOTTINGEN,    Nov.    I3,    1896.  PrOF.    J.    WeLLHAUSEN. 

This  note  very  clearly  shows  that  Baxter's  review,  of 
which  Mr.  Gladstone  said  that,  if  Wellhausen  did  not 
make  a  successful  defense  against  it,  his  reputation  was 
ruined,  has  struck  Wellhausen  in  a  very  tender  spot,  and 
has  stirred  him  up  to  wrath,  though  not  to  a  reply.  His 
allusion  to  being  burned  at  the  stake  is  a  "chestnut."  It 
is  the  old  cry  of  every  man  who,  by  false  teaching, 
excites  the  disgust  of  earnest  men.  But  he  and  all  others 
who,  while  professing  to  teach  religion,  deny  the  Lord 
who  bought  them,  ought  to  remember  that,  while  the 
fires  of  persecution  are  quenched,  there  is  another  fire 
that  is  not  quenched,  and  never  can  be.  He  says,  'Tn 
any  case,  the  truth  would  not  be  burned  with  me ;"  and 
we  can,  fortunately,  say,  No,  not  a  particle  of  truth, 
f/w fortunately,  however,  not  even  the  errors  that  he  has 
taught  will  be  burned  with  him.  They  will  live  on  to 
curse  his  admirers  long  after  he  shall  have  gone  to  his 
final  account. 

Men  of  this  type  do  not  talk  of  being  crushed  imtil 
some  close  shave  has  suggested  the  possibility  of  it,  and 
then,  by  a  subterfuge  as  ancient  as  it  is  transparent,  they 
assume  that  their  opposers  are  enemies  of  truth. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  169 

[March   27.    1897] 

EVOLUTION  AXD  .MIRACLES. 

One  would  have  supposed  that  Lyman  Abbott,  in 
pushing  forward  his  theory  of  evolution,  would  have 
stopped  when  he  came  to  miracles ;  for  of  all  things  that 
ever  took  place  on  earth,  these  are  the  farthest  removed 
from  the  possibility  of  such  a  process,  being  indeed  the 
very  antithesis  of  evolution.  But  lo !  the  doughty  Doctor 
plunges  head  foremost  into  this  absurdity  in  The  Out- 
look for  March  13.  He  begins  by  a  more  formal  admis- 
sion than  in  his  former  articles,  that  some  miracles  have 
really  been  wrought,  among  them  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus.    Respecting  those  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  he  says : 

I  Ijelieve  that  some  of  the  events  there  recorded,  and  gen- 
erally regarded  as  miraculous,  did  take  place ;  that  others  there 
recorded  or  referred  to  did  not  take  place ;  and  concerning 
others  there  recorded  I  am  by  no  means  certain  whether  they 
took  place  as  recorded  or  not. 

In  the  second  of  these  classes,  those  which  did  not 
take  place,  he  puts  Joshua's  miracle  of  causing  the  sun 
and  the  moon  to  stand  still ;  he  is  doubtful  about  "the 
wonderful  stories  in  the  Book  of  Daniel,"  and  he  also 
doubts  the  one  in  which  Peter  found  the  tribute  money 
in  the  mouth  of  the  fish.  Fish  stories  like  this  and  the 
one  in  the  Book  of  Jonah  ^re  particularly  obnoxious  to 
his  way  of  believing.  He  has  not  said  what  he  thinks  of 
the  two  miraculous  drafts  made  by  the  disciples  at 
Christ's  command. 

Preparatory  to  his  attempt  to  show  that  miracles 
were  wrought,  when  they  were  wrought  at  all,  by  evolu- 
tion, he  repeats  and  emphasizes  his  own  "point  of  view," 
that  "God's  method  of  manifesting  his  eternal  presence 
is  the  method  of  growth,  not  manufacture,  by  a  power 


170  SHORT   ESSAYS  IN 

of  dwelling  within  and  working  outward,  not  by  a  power 
dwelling  without  and  working  upon  nature."  If,  then, 
Jesus  gave  eyesight  to  the  man  born  blind,  he  gave  it, 
not  by  a  power  dwelling  without  the  man's  eye,  and 
working  upon  it,  but  by  "the  method  of  growth,"  by  a 
power  dwelling  within  the  eye  and  working  outward.  So 
with  the  loaves  and  fishes:  he  did  not  "manufacture"  the 
additional  bread  and  fish,  but  he  made  the  fish,  though 
dead  and  dried,  grozv  by  the  power  dwelling  within  the 
fish,  and  not  by  working  on  it  from  without.  The  bread, 
too,  was  made  to  grozv,  though  it,  too,  had  been  thor- 
oughly baked,  after  having  the  life  ground  out  of  it  by 
the  millstones.  I  wish  he  had  told  us  how  Jesus  made 
the  water  grozv  into  wine ! 

But,  forgetting  all  this,  the  Doctor,  before  getting 
through,  has  man  regulating  evolution  after  this  fash- 
ion: "He  finds  a  prairie  strewed  with  grass  and  wild 
flowers,  and  out  of  that  same  prairie  he  evolves  this 
year  a  cornfield,  next  year  a  wheatfield."  But  how? 
Does  he  do  it  by  a  power  from  without?  Or  does  the 
man  get  under  the  ground  and  push  out  the  corn  this 
year,  and  the  wheat  the  next?  Farmers  have  an  idea 
that  they  work  on  the  ground  from  without,'  and  not 
from  within.  Moles  work  from  within,  but  they  don't 
make  the  corn  grozi'.  If  the  mole  were  to  publish  a 
newspaper,  he  would  call  it  The  Outlook,  for  he  stays 
in  the  ground  and  looks  out. 


[Jan.  2,  1897.] 

A   SYMPOSIUM   ON   "PRACTICAL  CHRISTIAN- 
ITY." 

In   former  times  we  were   wont   to   hear  of   several 
kinds  of  faith,  such  as  saving  faith,  historical  faith,  the 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  171 

faith  of  trust,  etc.  Now  we  hear  of  doctrinal  Christian- 
ity, appHed  Christianity,  practical  Christianity,  etc.,  as 
though  Christianity,  instead  of  being  a  unit,  as  faith  is, 
was  this  and  that  and  something  else. 

So  goes  the  talk  of  the  day,  and  so  the  Arena,  which 
is  by  no  means  a  Christian  magazine,  published  in  its 
December  number  a  symposium  on  "Practical  Christian- 
ity." The  contributors  to  the  symposium  are  Edward  A. 
Horton,  Rufus  B.  Tobey,  Mary  A.  Livermore,  Robert 
E.  Bisbee  and  Edward  Everett  Hale.  All  of  these  except 
the  woman  in  the  case  have  the  "Rev."  prefixed  to  their 
names. 

The  first  writer,  Mr.  Horton,  is  the  English  clergy- 
man who  visited  this  country  last  year  to  deliver  lectures 
to  the  divinity  students  of  Yale  University,  and  taught 
that  a  man  should  never  go  into  the  pulpit  without  a 
message  to  deliver  which  he  had  received  direct  from 
God.  He  should  not  deliver  Paul's  message,  but  his 
own.  At  the  beginning  of  his  article,  he  attempts  a  defi- 
nition of  "practical  Christianity."     He  begins  by  saying: 

There  is  not  a  sect  in  Christendom  that  may  not  claim  to  be 
developing  "practical  Christianity."  Why.  then,  this  revolt,  and 
this  modern  emphasis  on  the  word  "practical"?  If  all  denomi- 
nations are  trying  to  make  the  world  of  mankind  better,  it 
would  seem  as  if  our  definition  might  be  found  in  the  ordinary 
terms  of  the  average  theologies  and  creeds. 

This  is  a  very  broad  insinuation  that  all  denomina- 
tions are  not  trying  to  make  mankind  better,  though  it 
is  quite  certain  that  this  is  what  they  all  claim  to  be 
doing,  n  one  element  of  practical  Christianity  is  to  cast 
doubt  upon  the  honesty  of  a  neighbor's  avowed  inten- 
tions, I  suppose  that  Mr.  Horton  has  Christianity  of  the 
practical  kind.  But  further  on  he  answers  his  own  ques- 
tion by  the  following  definition  : 


1/2  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Practical  Christianity,  from  my  point  of  view  and  work,  is 
one  of  the  mighty  agencies  provided  by  the  evolution  of  history 
for  our  use  in  civilizing  the  world.  It  is  a  product  of  Hebrew 
rootage,  now  adapted  to  the  wants  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race. 

Practical  Christianity,  then,  is  not  for  our  use  in  sav- 
ing men  from  sin  and  hell,  but  for  our  use  in  "civilizing 
the  world."  For  this  purpose  it  is  just  one  of  the  mighty 
agencies  provided ;  and  it  is  provided,  not  by  a  divine 
revelation,  but  "by  the  evolution  of  history."  This  is  to 
me,  I  confess,  a  new  kind  of  evolution.  I  was  not  aware 
before  that  history,  which  is  but  a  record  of  past  events, 
had  ever  evolved  anything ;  and  I  have  never  dreamed 
that  it  has  evolved  practical  Christianity,  or  any  other 
kind  of  Christianity.  Moreover,  I  had  supposed,  from 
reading  the  Bible,  that  Christianity  was  a  product  of  the 
divine  mind  working  through  inspired  men  and  through 
the  Son  of  God.  I  did  not  know  that  it  was  "a  product 
of  Hebrew  rootage."  I  thought,  too,  that  it  was  adapted 
to  the  wants  of  the  whole  human  race,  inasmuch  as  the 
Founder  commanded  that  it  be  preached  to  the  whole 
race ;  so  it  is  news  to  me  that  it  is  now  adapted  "to 
merely  the  Anglo-Saxon  race."  If  this  news  is  true 
news,  the  missionaries  to  the  heathen  lands  may  be  at 
once  called  home. 

In  passing,  Mr.  Horton  remarks  that  Col.  Robert  G. 
Ingersoll,  on  the  basis  of  agnosticism,  has  preached  an 
"inspiring  message;"  and  he  says  a  number  of  other 
things  about  as  inspiring  and  about  as  true  as  these 
which  I  have  quoted.  He  winds  up  with  the  following 
sage  remarks : 

Slowly,  but  surely,  the  Christianity  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  begins  to  dawn.  It  differs  somewhat  from  Paul's,  from 
Augustine's,  from  Calvin's,  but  it  is  the  Christianity  of  Jesus, 
from  whom  Paul,  Augustine  and  Calvin  imperfectly,  though 
honestly,  took  their  watchwords. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  i;3 

The  reader  will  recognize  in  this  last  quotation  the 
**Back  to  Jesus!"  cry  of  which  I  have  made  mention 
more  than  once  of  late.  It  puts  Paul  down  in  the  com- 
pany of  Augustine,  Calvin,  and  others,  who  .have  taken 
their  "watchwords"  merely  from  Jesus,  but  have  done 
even  this  imperfectly.  No  wonder  that  ]\Ir.  Horton 
wants  to  deliver  his  own  message  instead  of  Paul's.  I 
wonder  what  will  become  of  the  world  when  he  dies! 

]\Ir.  Tobey  is  more  misty  than  Air.  Horton,  and  con- 
sequently his  expression  of  views  is  not  so  tangible ;  but 
a  single  sentence  gives  the  keynote  to  his  article.  It  is 
this : 

The  record  of  what  Christ  did  is  as  emphatic  as  the  report 
of  what  he  said,  and  one  of  his  most  striking  utterances  upon 
eschatology  is  the  threatened  punishment,  not  for  refusal  to 
beheve,  but  for  a  failure  to  act. 

He  does  not  cite  that  utterance,  but  I  suppose  he 
refers  to  the  sentence,  "Depart,  ye  cursed,  to  eternal  fire 
prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels  ;  for  I  was  hungry 
and  ye  fed  me  not,"  etc.  I  wonder  if  he  thinks  this  utter- 
ance any  more  striking  than  the  familiar  one  which 
Ingersoll  pronounces  "the  most  infamous  saying  in  the 
Bible" :  "He  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  This 
looks  as  if  failure  to  believe  is  with  Jesus  about  on  a  par 
with  failure  to  act. 

Airs.  Livermore  is  a  very  fine  lecturer ;  is  said  to  be 
a  very  good  woman  ;  but  her  conception  of  Christianity 
is  about  as  crude  and  false  as  those  of  her  male  com- 
panions in  this  symposium. 

She  is  an  evolutionist,  an  optimist,  and  a  disbeliever 
in  the  historicity  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  the  following 
extract  clearly  shows : 

Every  religion  has  always  been  the  best  possible  at  the  time. 
It  has  expressed  the  highest  thought  and  sentiments  of  the  gen- 


174  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

eration  accepting  it,  and  its  intention  has  always  been  toward  a 
nobler  ideal  of  perfection  than  had  existed  before.  Each  has 
prepared  the  way  for  something  better.  And  through  them  the 
race  has  been  steadily  climbing  higher  for  tens  of  thousands  of 
years,  as  it  has  advanced  in  civilization  and  grown  more  intel- 
lectual and  more  ethical,  until  the  Christian  religion  has  been 
evolved  with  its  simple,  universal  and  eternal  truths. 

According  to  these  utterances,  onr  race  has  been 
steadily  climbing  for  tens  of  thousands  of  years,  say  fifty 
thousand,  and  in  that  time  the  tribes  of  Africa  have 
climbed  no  higher  than  fetish  worship,  while  the  Chinese, 
nearly  one-third  of  the  race,  have  climbed  only  a  step 
or  two  higher.  Slozv  clinibiiig,  I  should  say.  But  slow 
or  fast  makes  no  difference,  for  according  to  this  wise 
woman  every  religion  is  the  best  possible  at  the  time ; 
that  of  China  is  the  best  possible  for  the  Chinese  at  the 
present  time,  and  that  of  Africa  the  best  possible  for  the 
Africans,  while  the  Mohammedan  religion  is  the  best 
possible  for  the  Turks,  even  if  it  does  make  them  mas- 
sacre the  Armenians.  Here  is  another  reason  for  calling 
home  all  the  missionaries  who  have  been  sent  to  heathen 
and  Mohammedan  lands. 

Mrs.  Livermore,  strange  to  say,  after  reading  the 
preceding,  joins  the  crowd  in  the  cry  of  "Back  to  Jesus !" 
After  remarking  that  we  must  judge  a  religion  only  as 
it  was  propounded  by  its  founder,  she  says :  "We  must 
go  back  to  Jesus  Christ,  its  author,  and  learn  what  he 
thought."  As  she  has,  of  course,  done  this,  we  may  con- 
clude, I  suppose,  that  Jesus  thought  that  the  religion  of 
the  scribes  and  Pharisees  of  his  day  was  the  best  possible 
for  the  time. 

Mr.  Bisbee,  the  fourth  writer  in  the  symposium, 
expresses  himself,  in  the  main,  more  cautiously ;  but  he 
writes  two  sentences  which  show  what  he  thinks  of 
"practical   Christianity" : 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  175 

To  me,  "practical  Christianity"  means  the  removal  of  the 
causes  of  evil,  the  destruction  of  the  motives  for  wrong,  the 
creation  of  an  atmosphere  of  purity,  truth  and  love.  .  .  .  The 
first  duty  of  practical  Christianity  may  sometimes  be  to  destroy 
the  church  itself. 

Mr.  Ijisbee  is  evidently  a  smasher;  for  he  thinks  that 
the  church  itself  ought  to  be  destroyed,  sometimes;  and 
in  this  he  opposes  not  Paul  only,  but  Christ,  for  the 
former  says:  "If  any  man  destroy  the  church  of  God, 
him  will  God  destroy ;"  while  the  latter  says  that  the 
church  is  built  on  a  rock,  and  that  the  gates  of  Hades 
shall  not  prevail  against  it. 

Edward  Everett  Hale,  the  noted  Unitarian  orator  and 
writer,  comes  next  and  last.  After  saying  that  when  you 
meet  a  man  who  is  interested  in  prisons,  and  makes  him- 
self useful  to  others  who  are  being  tried,  or  have  been 
tried,  you  say,  "Here  is  a  piece  of  practical  Christianity," 
he  adds : 

It  is  certainly  very  curious,  it  is  very  melancholy,  that  ninety- 
nine  hundredths  of  the  books  which  have  been  written  about 
Christianity  in  the  last  nineteen  hundred  years  make  no  refer- 
ence to  such  practical  matters.  Generally  speaking,  they  are 
useless  discussions  about  sin  and  the  nature  of  sin.  Sometimes 
they  mount  £o  high  as  to  give  some  good  advice  to  some  one 
individual  how  to  save  his  soul.  But  the  definite  business  of 
enlarging  life,  of  making  the  world  a  stronger  and  wiser  and 
better  world,  is  passed  by  in  such  literature,  as  if  it  were  a 
business  with  which  men  have  as  little  to  do  as  butterflies  seem 
to  have. 

I  have  not  read  nineteen-twentieths  of  the  books  that 
have  been  written  the  last  nineteen  centuries,  as  Mr. 
Hale  seems  to  have  done,  but  with  regard  to  nineteen- 
twentieths  of  those  which  I  have  read,  leaving  out  those 
written  by  Unitarians  and  other  unbelievers,  his  state- 
ment is  as  false  as  it  can  be.  He  certainly  has  a  strong 
prejudice  against  books  written  about  Christianity,  and 


176  SHORT  ESSAYS  IN 

especially  against  those  written  about  sin.  It  appears  to 
me  that  books  written  about  sin  are  very  well  calculated 
to  make  the  world  stronger  and  wiser  and  better;  for  if 
we  are  not  reminded  of  our  sins  we  are  very  likely  to 
go  on  in  them. 

Adopting  some  of  the  words  of  Mr.  Hale,  I  must 
say,  in  conclusion,  ''It  is  certainly  very  curious,  it  is  cer- 
tainly very  melancholy,"  that  such  a  mixture  of  skep- 
ticism and  Ritschlianism  should  issue  from  the  pen  of 
four  men  with  a  title  which  indicates  that  they  profess 
to  preach  the  gospel,  and  that  one  woman  of  high  stand- 
ing in  the  literary  world  should  be  found  in  such  com- 
pany. I  wonder  if  their  religion  is  the  best  possible  at 
this  time  for  them!     If  so,  I  pity  them. 


[Feb.  27,  1897.] 
LYMAN    ABBOTT    AND    EVOLUTION. 

The  editor  of  The  Outlook  is  publishing  a  series  of 
essays  in  his  magazine  under  the  title  "The  Theology  of 
an  Evolutionist,"  which  show  that  he  is  developing  very 
rapidly  into  an  unbeliever. 

On  the  subject  of  inspiration  he  has  reached  the  point 
of  rejecting  the  miraculous  in  it  and  reducing  it  to  the 
level  of  the  influence  which  is  exerted  by  oratory  and 
music.  He  says  in  his  issue  of  January  23 :  "A  congre- 
gation listens  to  an  inspiring  address ;  an  audience  to 
inspiring  music.  We  are  inspired  by  reading  the  records 
of  past  heroism.  Emotions,  thoughts,  feelings  pass  from 
mind  to  mind.  One  soul  breathes  its  life  into  another 
soul;  God  breathes  his  life  into  us  all.  This  is  inspira- 
tion: the  elevating  or  clarifying  influence  which  our 
'pirit  may  have  upon  another   spirit      Belief  in   divine 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  i-j-y 

inspiration  is  belief  that  God's  Spirit  has  such  an  influ- 
ence on  human  spirits." 

He  has  evolved  out  of  belief  in  much  that  is  written 
as  history  in  the  Bible.  He  says  of  "the  Christian  evolu- 
tionist" :  "It  is  quite  immaterial  with  him  that  the  world 
was  not  made  in  six  days  ;  that  there  never  was  a  uni- 
versal deluge;  that  Abraham  mistook  the  voice  of  con- 
science calling-  on  him  to  consecrate  his  only  son  to  God, 
and  interpreted  it  as  a  command  to  slay  his  son  as  a 
burnt  offering;  that  Israel  misinterpreted  righteous  in- 
dignation at  the  cruel  and  lustful  rites  of  the  Canaanitish 
religion  for  a  divine  summons  to  destroy  the  worship  by 
putting  the  worshipers  to  death,"  etc. 

He  has  dropped  down  to  belief  in  the  fragmentary 
origin  of  our  four  Gospels,  of  which  he  says:  "Frag- 
ments of  the  story  of  his  life  were  told  and  written 
down.  Fragments  were  possessed  by  one  church,  other 
fragments  by  another.  These  fragments  were  exchanged 
among  the  churches.    They  grew  into  a  connected  story.'' 

He  has  reached  such  a  point  of  infallibility  himself 
that  he  submits  to  no  infallible  authority.  He  says: 
"There  is  no  infallible  authority.  Infallible  authority  is 
undesirable.     God  has  not  given  it  to  his  children." 

Perhaps  the  reader  is  about  to  ask,  \Miat  has  all  this 
to  do  with  evolution  ?  \\>11,  nothing  at  all ;  for  Dr. 
Abbott  is  not  much  in  the  habit  of  sticking  to  his  text. 
He  is  one  of  Jude's  wandering  stars.  He  has  left  his 
orbit,  and  goes  bumping  around  against  everything  that 
lies  in  the  way.  His  next  essay  is  on  "Jesus  and  Evolu- 
tion." I  hope  to  notice  some  things  in  it  next  week. 
They  are  things  in  advance  of  these;  for  a  wandering 
star  can  not  stand  still  even  for  a  week.  .\  consistent 
evolutionist  must  keep  evolving;  that  is.  a  human  evolu- 
tionist; for  those  of  the  lower  order  of  animals  some- 


178  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

times  stop.  When  the  tadpole  turns  to  a  frog,  he  goes 
no  further:  he  afterward  turns  neither  to  a  bird  nor  a 
mud  turtle ;  but  when  a  human  sophist  starts  out  on  a 
career  of  evolution  he  is  seldom  willing  to  stop  until  he 
lands  in  atheism,  the  ultima  thitle  of  evolution. 

Evolution,  properly  defined  as  a  theory  of  the  origin 
and  growth  of  things,  means  development  from  within; 
and  it  excludes  any  and  every  force  from  without.  This 
being  true,  to  talk  of  theistic  evolution  is  to  use  contra- 
dictory terms,  and  to  talk  nonsense.  If  God  in  any  way 
exerts  a  power  in  the  growth  of  matter  external  to 
matter  as  such,  then  the  theory  of  evolution  is  false;  and 
all  this  theorizing  about  theistic  evolution  is  but  a  decep- 
tive use  of  words.    It  is  a  delusion  and  a  snare. 


[Jan.  i6,  1897.] 

LYMAN    ABBOTT    ON    SACRIFICE. 

The  reader  may  remember  that  some  weeks  ago  I 
made  mention  of  an  editorial  in  The  Outlook  in  which 
the  subject  of  sacrifice  w.as  treated  after  the  Unitarian 
fashion,  and  which  was  reviewed  in  a  strong  article  by 
Mr.  Anin,  Presbyterian  preacher  in  the  South.  Later 
Dr.  Abbott  delivered  a  sermon  on  the  same  subject, 
which  was  reported  by  a  stenographer,  revised  by  the 
author,  and  published  in  The  Outlook  for  December  26. 
The  author  evidently  felt  that  the  circumstances  required 
of  him  the  best  and  strongest  effort  he  could  put  forth 
to  defend  his  positions.  The  sermon  is  consequently  the 
most  intensely  earnest  piece  of  writing  that  I  have  seen 
from  Dr.  Abbott's  pen.  Much  of  it  is  not  only  true 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  but  it  stirs  the  heart  of  the 
thoughtful  reader  to  its  depths.  But,  notwithstanding 
the  many  excellencies  of  the  sermon,  the  positions  taken 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  179 

on  the  main  topic  arc  such  as  can  not  be  allowed  to  go 
unchallenged. 

The  sermon  teaches  in  most  explicit  and  emphatic 
terms  that  sacrifice  had  a  pagan  origin.  To  quote  a 
single  passage,  he  says:  "Many  persons  have  the  impres- 
sion that  Moses  not  only  commanded  sacrifice,  but  that 
it  originated  with  him.  Its  origin  is  pagan,  not  Jewish." 
I  am  at  a  loss  wdio  the  many  are  that  have  the  impression 
here  mentioned.  Certainly  they  are  not  persons  who 
believe  the  Bible,  for  it  finds  sacrifice  in  the  family  of 
Adam  long  before  paganism  had  an  existence.  The 
assertion  that  it  had  a  pagan  origin  is  to  deny  flatly  the 
truth  of  the  statements  about  sacrifices  said  to  have  been 
ofifered  by  Cain,  Abel  and  Noah.  This  recent  criticism 
does;  and  Dr.  Abbott  has  long  since  committed  himself 
to  recent  criticism. 

He  further  tells  us  that  the  pagan  conception  of  sac- 
rifices was  that  they  were  intended  "to  assuage  the  wrath 
of  angry  gods,  or  to  win  the  favor  of  reluctant  ones." 
This  statement  is  followed  by  these  remarks : 

This  was  Abraham's  thought  when  he  went  up  to  Mount 
]\Ioriah  to  offer  his  own  son.  By  givmg  his  son  a  sacrifice  to 
Jehovah  he  would  appease  Jehovah's  wrath,  or  would  still  fur- 
ther win  Jehovah's  favor.  And  God  interposed  to  teach  him 
that  no  such  sacrifice  was  needed — nay.  that  no  such  sacrifice 
was  permissible.  The  story  from  which  our  text  is  taken  is 
not  of  the  sacrifice,  but  of  the  salvation  of  Isaac.  In  this  inter- 
vention human  sacrifice  was  brought  to  an  end  for  Israel.  It 
died,  so  far  as  the  Jewish  nation  was  concerned,  before  the 
Jewish  nation  was  born. 

The  assertion  that  Abraham  went  up  to  Mount 
Moriah  with  such  a  thought  and  purpose  as  is  here 
affirmed,  is  a  palpable  contradiction  of  the  account  of 
this  transaction  given  in  Genesis  ;  for  it  is  there  said  that 
he  went  up  because  God  gave  him  an  express  command 


i8o  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

to  do  so.  If  that  account  is  true,  there  was  no  wrath 
of  God  for  him  to  appease ;  but  a  simple  and  unexplained 
command  of  God  for  him  to  obey;  and  he  obeyed  it 
because  he  had  such  faith  in  God  as  to  be  sure  that  what- 
ever he  would  command  must  be  rig-ht.  Dr.  Abbott 
evidently  does  not  believe  that  such  a  command  was 
given ;  and  if  he  does  not  believe  that  part  of  the  account, 
why  does  he  believe  any  part?  and  especially,  why  does 
he  believe  that  God  "interposed"?  The  fact  that  God 
commanded  the  sacrifice  to  be  made,  and  the  fact  that 
when  it  was  about  to  be  made  he  interposed  to  prevent 
it,  stand  on  precisely  the  same  ground  of  evidence  ;  why, 
then,  accept  the  one  and  reject  the  other?  Can  there  be 
any  reason,  except  that  the  one  suits  the  fancy  of  the 
preacher  and  that  the  other  does  not?  And  this  is  the 
"scientific'  way  to  deal  with  the  Bible! 

But  the  preacher,  not  content  with  contradicting  the 
leading  fact  in  the  narrative,  proceeds  to  invent  a  fact 
which  had  no  existence  by  saying  that  "in  this  interven- 
tion human  sacrifice  was  brought  to  an  end  for  Israel." 
How  could  that  be  brought  to  an  end  which  had  never 
had  a  beginning?  When  had  Abraham,  or  any  of  his 
ancestors,  offered  human  sacrifice  before?  When  had 
any  man,  of  any  tribe  or  kindred,  offered  human  sacrifice 
before?  Will  Dr.  Abbott  tell  us?  Other  unbelievers  in 
the  Scriptures  have  explained  the  offering  of  Isaac  dif- 
ferently by  saying-  that  when  Abraham  saw  the  heathen 
around  him  in  Canaan  offering  their  sons  to  imaginary 
gods,  he  concluded  to  emulate  their  zeal  by  offering  his 
own  son  to  the  true  and  living  God.  But  who  will  prove 
to  us  that  he  had  ever  seen  this  practice  among  the 
Canaanites?  The  first  mention  of  it  in  the  Bible  is  in 
the  Book  of  Leviticus,  where  it  is  mentioned  to  be  pro- 
hibited ;.  and  the  first  instance  of  it  is   in  the  case  of 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  i8i 

Mesha,  King  of  Aloab,  who  offered  his  son  on  the  wall 
of  his  city  when  it  was  besieged  by  the  kings  of  Israel, 
Judah  and  Edom  (2  Kings  3:  17 j.  If  a  man  can  not 
believe  facts  recorded  in  the  Scriptures,  how  can  he 
expect  others  to  believe  facts  which  he  himself  invents? 

Further  on  in  this  sermon,  Dr.  Abbott  denies  that 
]\Ioses,  in  the  only  legislation  that  he  credits  him  with, 
said  anything  at  all  about  sacrifice.  His  words  are:  "And 
when  the  great  prophet  of  Israel  appeared,  in  the  first 
teaching  which  he  gave  mankind,  nothing  whatever  was 
said  about  sacrifice."  What  shall  be  thought  of  this 
denial,  when  the  very  first  precept  of  the  book  of  the 
covenant,  after  the  ten  commandments,  contains  these 
words :  "An  altar  of  earth  shalt  thou  make  unto  me,  and 
shalt  sacrifice  thereon  thy  burnt  offerings,  and  thy  peace 
oft'erings,  thy  sheep  and  thine  oxen"  (Ex.  20:24):' 
Agam  it  is  said  in  this  same  book:  "He  that  sacrificeth 
to  any  god,  save  unto  Jehovah  only,  shall  be  utterly  de- 
stroyed" (22  :  20).  And  again  :  'Thou  shalt  not  offer  the 
blood  of  my  sacrifice  with  leavened  bread"  (23:18). 
Three  distinct  precepts  on  the  subject  are  given  in  this 
first  legislation,  yet  our  learned  D.  D.,  who  studies  the 
Bible  scientifically,  declares  that  ''nothing  whatever  is 
said  about  it  "  How  often  shall  I  entreat  these  new 
critics  to  study  their  Bibles,  and  to  know  what  is  in  them 
before  they  begin  to  write  like  oracles? 

Once  more.  He  quotes  Lev.  i  :  2,  3  from  the  A.  V., 
closing  with  these  words:  "If  this  offering  be  a  burnt 
sacrifice  of  the  herd,  let  him  offer  a  male  without  blem- 
ish :  he  shall  offer  if  of  his  ozcu  voluntary  li'ill/'  and  says : 
"That  is  the  foundation  of  the  Levitical  code.  No  man 
shall  be  put  under  compulsion  ;  he  shall  not  be  required ; 
there  shall  be  no  bribe  to  induce  him  ;  he  shall  offer  it  of 
his  own  voluntary  will."     Now,  instead  of  the  words  at 


i82  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

the  close  of  this  quotation,  which  Dr.  Abbott  itahcizes 
and  makes  the  "foundation  of  the  Levitical  code,"  we 
have  in  the  Revised  Version  these  words,  "that  he  may 
be  accepted  before  Jehovah."  So  the  foundation  drops 
out  when  the  text  is  correctly  rendered.  A  critic  who 
follows  the  "scientific"  method  ought  to  be  sure  of  his 
text  before  he  makes  it  his  "foundation,"  lest  he  be 
found  building  on  the  sand. 

But  if  the  rendering  adopted  from  the  Old  Version 
were  correct,  it  would  only  show  that  in  this  passage  the 
law  speaks  of  voluntary  or  freewill  offerings.  It  could 
not  be  strained  to  imply  that  there  were  no  others.  And 
that  there  were  offerings  which  were  required  at  a  man's 
peril,  ought  to  be  known  to  every  Bible  student,  and 
much  more  to  a  man  of  Dr.  Abbott's  pretensions.  The 
regular  morning  and  evening  sacrifices,  those  of  the  Sab- 
bath, those  of  the  new  moon,  those  of  the  feast  of  the 
Passover,  and  of  the  feast  of  Pentecost,  and  of  the  feast 
of  Tabernacles,  are  well-known  examples.  Those  re- 
quired of  men  who  had  committed  trespass  against  a 
neighbor,  or  a  trespass  in  holy  things,  and  the  large  class 
called  sin  or  guilt  offerings,  were  every  one  compulsory. 
And  so  were  many  others.  How  a  man  who  has  ever 
read  the  Books  of  Leviticus  and  Numbers,  and  especially 
how  a  man  who  has  studied  "scientifically,"  as  we  must 
suppose  that  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott  has  done,  can  speak  of 
sacrifice  under  the  Levitical  law  as  he  does,  is  beyond 
any  ordinary  comprehension.  It  would  be  well  for  him 
to  explain  hozv  this  can  be. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  183 

[Jan.  16,  1897.] 

WHO    IS    AN    IXFIDEL? 

My  own  definition  of  an  infidel,  according  to  which 
I  have  used  the  term  for  many  years,  is  one  who  rejects 
the  miraculous  element  in  Bible  history.  I  would  not 
include  in  the  term  one  who  for  special  reasons  may 
doubt  or  deny  the  occurrence  of  some  one  or  more  of  the 
miracles,  on  the  occurrence  of  which  nothing  of  moment 
depends,  while  admitting  the  reality  of  the  miracles  in 
general.  But  he  who  makes  a  sweeping  denial  of  mir- 
acles in  general,  as  being  either  impossible  or  incapable 
of  proof,  is  an  infidel. 

Does  this  definition  identify  infidels  with  the  unbe- 
lievers or  disbelievers  who,  according  to  Christ  and  the 
apostles,  are  doomed  to  perish  if  they  die  in  that  con- 
dition? I  think  it  does,  for  it  is  he  who  disbelieves  the 
gospel  that  shall  be  condemned,  and,  according  to  Paul, 
one  of  the  essential  facts  of  the  gospel  is  the  resurrection 
of  Christ.  He  who  denies  the  miracles  yiust  deny  this 
one,  while  he  who  believes  this  believes  miracles  in  gen- 
eral, and  he  believes  the  gospel.  He  who  denies  this  is 
yet  in  his  sins  (i  Cor.  15:12-19),  and  dying  so  he 
perishes. 

There  is  a  difiference  between  the  infidel  and  the 
skeptic,  or  the  doubter :  yet  it  is  a  difference  of  degree. 
While  the  infidel  disbelieves,  the  doubter  can  not  yet 
believe.  The  latter  is  in  the  more  hopeful  condition, 
inasmuch  as  he  has  not  yet  decided  against  the  gospel : 
but  inasmuch  as  it  is  necessary  to  believe  in  order  to  be 
saved,  he  too  must  perish  if  he  remains  where  he  is. 


i84  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

[March  6,  1897-] 
"THE    BIBLE    AS    LITERATURE." 

By  Prof.  Richard  G.  Moulton,  Ph.  D. ;  the  Rev.  John 
P.  Peters,  D.  D. ;  Prof.  A.  B.  Bruce,  D.  D.,  and  others. 
With  an  introduction  by  the  Rev.  Lyman  Abbott,  D.  D. 
Pubhshed  by  Thomas  Y.  Crowell  &  Co.,  New  York. 

This  book,  of  which  I  gave  a  brief  announcement  a 
few  weeks  ago,  is  the  joint  product  of  twenty-one 
writers,  all  men  of  prominence  in  literary  and  religious 
circles.  They  write,  every  one  on  a  separate  portion  of 
the  Bible,  beginning  with  Genesis  and  ending  with  Rev- 
elation. Thirteen  essays  are  devoted  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  seven  to  the  New.  As  the  book  contains  only 
375  P^ges,  the  essays  are  all  comparatively  short.  It  is 
commended  to  the  public  by  writers  of  a  certain  class  in 
such  terms  as  to  indicate  that  they  esteem  it  of  great 
value ;  and  the  publishers'  slip  which  accompanies  the 
specimen  copies  closes  with  the  statement,  "The  book  can 
be  warmly  recommended  to  all  Sunday-school  and  liter- 
ary classes."  It  may  be  regarded,  then,  as  an  attempt 
to  popularize  the  views  respecting  the  Bible  entertained 
by  its  chief  promoters  and  contributors.  While  this 
effort  is  being  made,  it  becomes  the  duty  of  thoughtful 
men  who  have  at  heart  the  religious  welfare  of  young 
people  to  inspect  it  very  carefully,  and  to  pass  judgment 
on  its  merits. 

There  are  many  persons  now,  of  limited  reading  in 
Biblical  literature  of  the  past  few  centuries,  or  possessed 
of  convenient  memories,  who  speak  and  write  as  if  the 
fact  that  the  Bible  is  literature,  was  a  new  discovery  now 
being  brought  before  the  public  for  the  first  time.  There 
is  nothing  more  deceptive.  The  literary  merits  of  the 
Bible  and  the  special  literary  excellencies  of  the  several 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  185 

writers  have  been  known,  and  have  been  held  up  to 
pubhc  admiration  in  all  the  literary  ages  of  the  past. 
What  college  graduate  now  fifty  years  old  does  not 
remember  reading  in  his  Greek  course  the  essay  on  "The 
Sublime,"  written  by  Longinus,  a  Greek  writer  of  the 
third  century  A.  D.,  in  which  he  quotes,  as  one  of  the 
finest  extant  specimens  of  sublimity  in  writing,  a  passage 
from  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis?  From  the  time  of 
Longinus  to  this  day,  it  w^ould  be  easy  to  produce  an 
almost  continuous  line  of  writers  who  have  pointed  out 
the  literary  features  of  the  Bible  for  the  admiration  of 
their  readers.  This  has  been  done  to  some  extent  even  by 
the  most  prosaic  of  the  commentators.  What,  then,  is 
the  meaning  of  this  new  emphasis  on  the  subject  which 
displays  itself  as  a  fresh  discovery?  It  means  simply 
this,  that  certain  men  have  learned  to  look  upon  the  Bible 
as  the  mere  national  literature  of  the  Hebrews,  com- 
parable to  the  national  literature  of  other  ancient  peoples, 
excelling  these  chiefly,  if  not  only,  in  the  fact  that  it 
emanated  from  a  people  who  worshiped  only  one  God, 
but  not  excelling  them  in  truthful  representations  re- 
specting the  earliest  times.  The  contributors  to  this 
volume — at  least  those  wdiose  essays  refer  to  Old  Testa- 
ment books — are  all  advocates  of  the  "new  criticism," 
and  one  has  to  read  no  further  than  the  introduction  to 
see  that  it  is  intended,  under  the  disguise  of  setting  forth 
the  literary  characteristics  of  the  Bible,  to  instill  into  the 
minds  of  its  readers  as  settled  facts  the  disputed  con- 
clusions of  recent  German  unbelievers.  I  can  not  occupy 
here  the  space  necessary  to  support  this  statement  by 
quotations,  though  I  may  do  this  hereafter ;  but  I  wish 
to  say  as  emphatically  as  I  can  that  Sunday-school  and 
literature  classes,  instead  of  being  warmly  advised  to 
study  the  book,  should  be  very  warmly  advised  to  shun 


i86  SHORT  ESSAYS   IN 

it,  until  a  better  knowledge  of  the  Bible  than  they  now 
possess  shall  enable  them  to  read  it  without  detriment  to 
their  faith. 


[March  13,   1897.] 
EVOLUTION    AND    SACRIFICE    ONCE    MORE. 

If  to  any  one  it  appears  that  Lyman  Abbott's  name  is 
unduly  conspicuous  on  this  page,  let  it  be  understood  that 
he  has  himself  provoked  it.  For  several  years  previous 
to  the  opening  of  this  department  in  the  Standard,  Pro- 
fessor Briggs  was  the  central  figure  in  the  controversy 
over  higher  criticism  in  this  country.  After  he  subsided, 
President  Harper  came  to  the  front ;  and  now  that  he 
has  retired  from  the  leadership.  Dr.  Abbott,  through  his 
pulpit  and  his  magazine,  has  renewed  the  firing  from  a 
diiTerent  point  of  the  compass.  Where  the  hottest  fire 
of  the  enemy  is,  thither  the  return  fire  must  be  directed. 
Some  of  the  friends  of  this  last  champion  have  cried  out 
that  he  is  being  "hounded"  for  his  recent  utterances ;  but 
this  should  not  surprise  them,  for  it  is  the  business  of  the 
hounds  to  open  after  every  fox  that  makes  a  fresh  trail 
before  them.  What  are  hounds  fit  for  if  they  do  not 
chase  away  the  foxes  ? 

In  his  last  essay,  published  in  Tlic  Outlook  for  Feb- 
ruary 20,  Dr.  Abbott  says  many  true  and  excellent  things 
about  vicarious  suffering.  He  shows  that  throughout 
animated  nature,  and  more  particularly  in  the  human 
family,  a  large  part  of  the  suffering  experienced  is  that 
which  is  borne  by  some  in  behalf  of  others.  But  when 
he  comes  to  the  sufferings  of  Christ  for  men,  he  ex- 
presses himself  as  follows: 

This,  too,  is  what  is  meant  by  that  statement,  so  dear  to 
some  and  so  shocking  to  others,  that  we  are  saved  by  the  blood 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  187 

of  Christ.  Let  us  try  for  a  moment  to  disabuse  our  minds  of 
traditional  opinions  and  see  what  that  phrase  means,  looked  at 
in  the  light  of  history.  Is  the  blood  of  Christ  that  which  flowed 
from  him  at  the  crucifixion?  His  was  almost  a  bloodless  death; 
a  few  drops  of  blood  only  trickled  from  the  pierced  hands  and 
feet;  for  the  blood  and  water  that  came  from  the  side  when 
the  spear  pierced  it  came  after  death,  when  the  suffering  was 
over. 

These  questions,  he  assumes,  are  to  be  answered  in 
the  negative,  because  the  quantity  of  blood  that  was  shed 
before  death  was  so  small.  Here  are  two  original  ideas  ; 
first,  that  through  the  lacerated  hands  and  feet  of  Jesus 
only  a  few  drops  of  blood  could  have  trickled;  and, 
second,  that  the  efftcacy  of  his  blood  depended  on  the 
quantity  that  was  shed.  And  we  might  add,  as  a  third, 
that  the  blood  which  flowed  from  his  pierced  side  is  not 
to  be  considered  because  it  came  forth  after  his  death, 
although  it  was  the  agony  of  death  which  caused  it  to 
accumulate  about  his  heart.  Let  Dr.  Abbott  have  full 
credit  for  his  originality.  I  am  sure  that  no  man  is  likely 
to  claim  any  part  of  it,  or  to  infringe  upon  his  copyright. 

But  is  it  to  that  blood  which  flowed  at  the  cross, 
whether  much  or  little,  that  our  salvation  is  ascribed? 
Men  have  always  believed  that  it  is ;  have  they  been  mis- 
taken? Let  the  Scriptures  answer;  for  they  are  to  be 
heard  in  preference  to  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott.  Take  the 
famiHar  passage,  "But  Christ,  having  come  a  high  priest 
of  the  good  things  to  come,  through  the  greater  and 
more  perfect  tabernacle  not  made  with  hands,  that  is  to 
say,  not  of  this  creation,  nor  yet  through  the  blood  of 
goats  and  calves,  but  through  his  own  blood,  entered  in 
once  for  all  into  the  holy  place,  having  obtained  eternal 
redemption"  (Heb.  9:11,  12).  Does  "his  own  blood" 
here,  put  in  contrast  with  the  blood  of  goats  and  calves, 
mean  the  blood  that  he  shed  at  the  crucifixion?  or  does 


i88  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

it  mean  something  else?  Take  Peter's  saying-,  that  we 
are  redeemed  "with  precious  blood,  as  of  a  lamb  without 
blemish  and  without  spot,  even  the  blood  of  Christ"  (i 
Pet.  I  :  19).  Or,  finally,  take  the  still  more  specific  refer- 
ence by  Paul  to  the  blood  shed  at  the  crucifixion :  "For 
it  was  the  good  pleasure  of  the  Father  that  in  him  should 
all  fulness  dwell ;  and  through  him  to  reconcile  all  things 
unto  himself,  having  made  peace  through  the  blood  of 
the  cross"  (Col.  i  :  20). 

But  if,  as  Dr.  Abbott  says,  "the  blood  of  Christ"  was 
not  the  blood  that  flowed  from  him  at  the  crucifixion, 
we  are  ready  to  ask,  What  was  it?  and  Dr.  Abbott  gives 
the  answer : 

Blood,  the  Bible  itself  declares,  is  life;  we  are  saved  by  the 
blood  of  Christ  when  we  are  saved  by  the  life  of  Christ — by 
Christ's  own  life  imparted  to  us  by  Christ's  life  transmitted, 
and  by  Christ's  life  transmitted,  as  life  alone  can  be  transmitted, 
through  the  gateway  of  pain  and  suffering. 

If  this  is  true,  that  is,  if,  when  we  are  said  to  be 
saved  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  it  is  meant  we  are  saved 
by  his  life  being  transmitted  to  us,  what  is  meant  when  it 
is  said  that  by  the  blood  of  goats  and  calves  the  Jews 
were  sanctified  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh?  The  two 
are  put  in  antithesis,  and  therefore  the  sanctifying  in  the 
one  case  must  be  parallel  to  the  saving  in  the  other ;  so  I 
suppose  Dr.  Abbott  would  have  it  that  the  Jews  were 
sanctified  by  the  life  of  the  goat  or  the  calf  transmitted, 
as  life  alone  can  be  transmitted  through  the  gateway  of 
pain  and  suffering.  But  when  the  life  of  the  goat  or 
the  calf  was  transmitted  to  the  Jew,  what  kind  of  life  did 
he  afterward  live?  Was  he  a  goat  or  a  calf,  or  a  com- 
bination of  both?  Perhaps  he  was  partly  goat,  partly 
calf,  partly  Jew — about  as  strange  a  mixture  as  Dr. 
Abbott  makes  of  the  doctrine  of  sacrifice. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  189. 

Dr.  Abbott  has  never  sufficiently  studied  the  Levitical 
law.  He  says:  "I  can  not  find  anywhere  in  the  Old 
Testament  the  word  sacrifice  coupled  with  the  idea  of 
penalty;  it  is  always  coupled  with  purification."  If  he 
means  by  the  first  clause  of  this  sentence  that  the  victim 
is  nowhere  represented  as  suffering  a  penalty,  he  is  cor- 
rect;  but  if  he  means  that  no  penalty  was  removed  from 
the  offerer  by  the  sacrifice,  he  is  radically  and  thoroughly 
v/rong;  for  some  kind  of  penalty  or  disability  was 
removed  by  every  sacrifice,  unless  the  peace  oft'ering  is 
an  exception.  And  while  it  is  true  that  in  all  the  sacri- 
fices offered  for  uncleanness  they  were  coupled  with 
purification,  it  is  not  true  that  sacrifice  was  "always 
coupled  with  purification."  On  the  contrary,  no  sin  oft'er- 
ing or  guilt  oft'ering  was  ever  coupled  with  purification, 
but  always  with  the  forgiveness  of  sin  and  the  con- 
sequent removal  of  the  penalty. 

Again  Dr.  Abbott  says : 

Xowhere  in  the  Xew  Testament  is  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
coupled  with  a  statement  of  the  removal  of  punishment — but 
always  with  the  transmission  of  life  or  the  removal  of  sin. 

I  believe  it  is  true  that  this  sacrifice  is  nowhere 
coupled  with  "a  statement  of  the  removal  of  punish- 
ment;" but  what  of  it?  It  is  coupled,  as  this  very  sen- 
tence affirms,  with  "the  removal  of  sin  ;"  and  when  sin 
is  removed,  its  penalty  is  remitted.  Literally  speaking, 
the  removal  of  past  sins  is  an  impossibility.  They  can 
be  removed  only  in  the  sense  that  they  are  forgiven  ;  and 
this  means  that  they  will  not  be  punished  ;  yet  Dr.  Abbott 
is  in  such  confusion  of  thought  on  the  subject  that  he 
says,  farther  on,  *Tt  is  not  the  removal  of  the  penalty, 
it  is  the  removal  of  the  sin,  humanity  needs."  Well,  to 
try  this,  let  us  suppose  that  Dr.  Abbott's  sins  at  a  certain 
moment  in  life  were  entirely   removed   so  that  he  will 


IQO  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

never  sin  again,  but  that  the  penalty  for  his  past  sins  is 
not  removed;  when  he  finds  himself  in  torment,  w^ill  he 
still  think  humanity  does  not  need  the  removal  of  the 
penalty?  I  hope  before  it  comes  to  that  he  will  change 
his  mind  and  repent  of  his  unscriptural  teaching. 


[March  20,  1897.] 

UNION    IN    DIVISION. 

The  Japanese  are  said  to  be  great  imitators,  and  there 
is  fresh  proof  of  it.  Having  learned  that  there  are  seri- 
ous divisions  among  Christians  in  this  country,  they  have 
also  come  to  learn  that  many  apologists  for  these  divi- 
sions have  devised  an  ingenious  way  of  trying  to  make 
out  that  all  divisions  are  but  another  form  of  unity. 
They  have  heard,  perhaps,  that  Presbyterianism  is  one 
branch  of  the  church,  representing  order ;  that  Method- 
ism is  but  another  branch,  representing  zeal ;  that  Epis- 
copalianism  is  another,  representing  ceremonial ;  and 
Baptistism  is  another,  representing  devotion  to  ordi- 
nances ;  but  that  all  are  one  happy  and  united  band  of 
brethren.  Perhaps,  also,  they  have  heard  this  same  unity 
in  diversity  represented  by  the  figure  of  a  great  army 
moving  in  different  divisions,  but  perfectly  united  under 
one  great  Commander.  So,  not  being  able  to  detect  the 
fallacy  in  all  this,  they  have  adopted  the  idea  and  applied 
it  to  the  fearful  diversity  of  religions  which  exist  in  their 
own  country ;  and  it  seems  to  me  that  they  have  made 
out  near  about  as  good  a  case  as  the  aforesaid  apologists 
have  made  for  us.  Here  is  the  way  it  is  stated,  accord- 
ing to  a  report  published  in  the  Congrcgationalist: 

In  a  kind  of  parliament  of  religions  (it  would  be  called  a 
union  conference  meeting  in  this  country),  there  were  present 
two   Shintoists    (worshipers   of   ancestors),   eighteen    Buddhists, 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  191 

six  Free  Religionists  and  sixteen  Christians.  One  of  the  Shin- 
toists  said :  "Let  us  remember  that  we  ail  represent  important 
parts  in  the  body  of  Xew  Japan's  religion — Buddhism  the  bones, 
Confucianism  the  flesh.  Christianity  the  blood,  and  Shintoism 
the  brains." 

There  it  is — the  popular  apology  for  the  divisions 
condemned  by  Christ,  in  its  newest  and  latest  phase, 
reflected  from  the  background  of  heathenism.  It  is  a 
mixture  which  for  vileness  is  equaled  only  by  the  in- 
gredients of  the  witch's  caldron  in  Macbeth: 

"Fillet  of  a  fenny  snake, 
hi  the  caldron  boil  and  bake ; 
Eye  of  newt,  and  toe  of  frog. 
Wool  of  bat.  and  tongue  of  dog, 
Adder's   fork,  and  blind-worm's   sting. 
Lizard's  leg,  and  owlet's  wing." 


[Alarch  20,   1897.] 
"THE    GOSPEL    IX    BRIEF." 

By  Count  Lyof  X.  Tolstoi.  Published  by  Thomas  Y. 
Crowell  &  Co.,  Xew  York. 

Few  writers  of  this  generation  have  made  a  greater 
temporary  sensation  in  the  literary  world  than  the  author 
of  this  book.  Whether  his  writings  have  had  a  tendency 
to  good  or  to  evil,  has  been  so  much  disputed  that  many 
discreet  persons  have  avoided  reading  them  on  the  gen- 
eral principle  that  we  can  not  afford  to  spend  time  with 
books  the  moral  eff'ects  of  which  are  in  dotibt.  Of  the 
volume  before  us,  some  men  might  say  that  it  is  filled 
with  the  spirit  of  love  and  forbearance ;  and  it  certainly 
speaks  with  sufficient  emphasis  in  favor  of  those  virtues; 
but  whether  its  teaching  is  such  as  to  promote  the  virtues 
which  it  extols,  is  doubtful,  to  say  the  least.  It  is  doubt- 
ful whether  any  writing  which  gives  a  one-sided  repre- 


192  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

sentation  to  the  teachings  of  Christ  on  any  subject,  in 
place  of  his  own  well-balanced  utterances  on  all  the 
phases  of  an  upright  life,  can  be  really  beneficial  to  its 
readers.  But  while  this  is  doubtful,  I  can  not  concede 
that  there  is  any  doubt  that  a  book  which  systematically 
misrepresents  utterances  of  Jesus  and  facts  in  his  life, 
can  be  other  than  pernicious  to  readers  who  accept  it  as 
an  authority.  That  this  book  does  this,  I  shall  presently 
show. 

Count  Tolstoi  says  in  the  preface  to  his  book  that  hz 
was  not  won  to  Christianity  till  he  was  fifty  years  old. 
He  says  of  himself  at  that  period,  "Having  questioned 
myself,  and  having  questioned  the  reputed  philosophers 
whom  I  knew,  as  to  what  I  am  and  as  to  the  purport  of 
my  life,  and,  after  getting  the  reply  that  I  was  a  for- 
tuitous concatenation  of  atoms,  and  that  my  life  was 
void  of  purport,  and  that  life  itself  is  evil,  I  became 
desperate,  and  wished  to  put  an  end  to  my  life."  Under 
these  circumstances  he  embarked  upon  the  study  of 
Christianity.  H  he  had  then  enjoyed  the  instruction  of 
a  good  teacher,  he  might  probably  have  been  brought 
to  the  light.  But  the  light  itself  was  darkness  to  his 
benighted  understanding,  as  is  proved  by  what  he  found 
the  gospel  narratives  to  be.     He  says : 

The  source  of  the  Christian  teaching  is  the  Gospels,  and 
there  I  found  the  explanation  of  the  Spirit  which  animates  the 
life  of  all  who  really  live.  But  along  with  the  flow  of  that 
pure,  life-giving  water  I  perceived  much  mire  and  slime  unlaw- 
fully, unrightfully  mingled  therewith ;  and  this  had  prevented 
me,  thus  far,  from  seeing  the  real,  pure  water.  He  goes  on  to 
illustrate  what  he  found  in  the  Gospels  by  a  sack  of  refuse 
which  a  man  had  raked  together,  and  in  which  he  found  a  few 
pearls   (Preface,  pp.  8,  9). 

On  another  page  he  says  that  "the  canonical  Gospels 
contain  nearly  as  many  faulty  passages  as  those  Gospels 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  193 

rejected  as  apocryphal."  With  such  a  conception  of  the 
Gospels,  and  the  further  conception  that  they  alone, 
exclusive  of  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
represent  Christianity  correctly,  how  is  it  possible  that 
he  could  ever  arrive  at  any  other  than  a  distorted  con- 
ception of  the  gospel,  whether  in  brief  or  in  extcnso? 

The  Greek  Church,  which  prevails  in  Russia,  is  ex- 
tremely boastful  of  its  orthodoxy,  and  Tolstoi  delights 
in  stabbing  it  under  the  fifth  rib.  He  constantly  speaks 
of  the  opponent  of  Jesus  as  "the  orthodox;"  a  priest  is 
always  "one  of  the  orthodox  priests;"  a  lawyer,  ''one  of 
the  orthodox  professors  of  the  law,"  etc.  His  account 
of  the  interview  with  certain  Pharisees  from  Jerusalem 
begins  thus : 

And  the  orthodox  professors  of  the  law  asked  him  :  "Why- 
do  you  live  not  according  to  church  tradition,  but  take  and  eat 
bread  with  unwashed  hands?"  And  he  answered  them:  "But 
in  what  way  do  you  break  God's  commandment,  following  your 
church  tradition  ?" 

He  reports  the  opening  of  the  interview  with  Nico- 
demus  thus : 

An  orthodox  believer,  one  of  the  Jewish  authorities, -named 
Xicodemus,  came  to  Jesus  at  night  and  said :  "You  do  not  bid 
us  to  keep  the  sabbath,  do  not  bid  us  observe  cleanliness,  do  not 
bid  us  to  make  offerings  and  fast ;  you  would  destroy  the  temple. 
You  say  of  God,  He  is  a  spirit,  and  you  say  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  that  it  is  within  us.  Then,  what  kind  of  a  kingdom  of 
God  is  this?"  And  Jesus  answered:  "Understand  that,  if  man  is 
conceived  from  heaven,  then  in  him  there  must  be  that  which 
is  of  heaven." 

Having  formed  such  an  opinion  of  the  Gospels,  he 
deals  with  them  accordingly  by  changing  their  thoughts 
and  language  at  will.  For  example,  he  represents  Joseph 
as  taking  Alary  to  wife  because  he  was  a  just  man  and 
did  not  wish  to  disgrace  her ;  whereas  he  really  contem- 


194  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

plated  a  divorce,  and  was  turned  from  his  purpose  only 
by  a  revelation  from  God,  which  Tolstoi  conveniently 
leaves  out  of  the  account.  He  says  that  the  parents  of 
Jesus,  when  the  feast  was  over  and  they  started  home, 
^'forgot  about  the  boy,"  and  that  afterward  "they  recol- 
lected, and  thought  that  he  had  gone  off  with  the  chil- 
dren." He  says  that  John  the  Baptist  "fed  on  bark  and 
herbs."  and  that  he  said  to  the  people,  "Bethink  your- 
selves, and  change  your  faith.  And  if  you  wish  to 
change  your  faith,  let  it  be  seen  by  your  fruits  that  you 
have  bethought  yourselves."  He  says :  "Jesus  came  from 
Gahlee  to  the  Jordan  to  be  bathed  by  John ;  and  lie 
bathed,  and  heard  John's  preaching."  In  the  account  of 
the  temptation  of  Jesus,  where  the  Scriptures  say  that 
the  devil  spoke  to  him,  Tolstoi  has  it  in  every  instance, 
*'The  voice  of  his  flesh  said  to  him."  When  he  comes  to 
the  last  temptation,  however,  he  does  not  represent  Jesus 
as  saying,  "Get  thee  hence,  flesh ;"  nor  does  he  say, 
''Then  his  flesh  leaveth  him,  and  angels  came  and  minis- 
tered to  him."  He  conveniently  leaves  this  out.  It 
would  have  spoiled  the  interpretation.  He  makes  the 
account  of  the  temptation  close  thus:  "Then  the  tempta- 
tion ceased,  and  Jesus  knew  the  power  of  the  spirit. 
And  when  he  had  known  the  power  of  the  spirit,  Jesus 
went  out  of  the  wild  places,  and  went  again  to  John,  and 
stayed  with  him."  In  this  way  throughout  the  book  the 
writer  distorts  the  narrative  to  suit  his  own  wayward 
fancy.  To  such  lengths  do  men  go  when  once  they  begin 
to  tamper  with  the  Scriptures. 

One  of  the  most  strangely  distorted  passages  in  this 
strange  book  is  its  version  of  the  Lord's  Prayer : 

"Our     Father,     without     beginning     and     without     end,     like 
heaven ! 

"May  thy  l)eing  only  he  holy. 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM 


195 


"Alay  power  be  only  thine,  so  that  thy  will  be  done,  without 
beginning  and  without  end,   on  earth. 

"Give  me  food  of  life  in  the  present. 

"Smoothe  out  my  former  mistakes,  and  wipe  them  away; 
even  as  I  do  with  all  the  mistakes  of  my  brothers,  that  I  may 
not  fall  into  temptation,  and  may  be  saved   from  evil. 

"Because  thine  is  the  power  and  might,  and  thine  the  judg- 
ment." 

His  rendering  of  the  story  of  the  rich  man  and  Laz- 
arus reads  almost  like  a  joke.     It  begins  thus : 

There  was  a  rich  man.  He  dressed  well,  led  an  idle  and 
amusing  life  every  day.  And  there  was  a  vagrant,  Lazarus, 
covered  w^ith  sores.  And  Lazarus  came  to  the  yard  of  the  rich 
man.  and  thought  there  would  be  leavings  from  the  rich  man's 
table,  but  Lazarus  did  not  get  even  the  leavings ;  the  rich  man's 
dogs  ate  up  everything,  and  even  licked  Lazarus'  sores. 

This  reminds  me  of  the  answer  made  by  a  good  sister 
when  told  that  Bob  Ingersoll  charged  the  Bible  with  say- 
ing that  the  rich  man  was  sent  to  hell  just  because  he 
was  rich,  for  he  had  done  nothing  mean.  She  replied 
with  warmth :  "I  know  better ;  he  did  do  something  mean. 
Didn't  he  sic  the  dogs  on  poor  Lazarus?" 

Our  author  makes  the  "Gospel  in  Brief"  end  with 
the  death  of  Jesus.  There  is  nothing  in  the  bock  about 
his  resurrection,  or  atout  the  words  which  he  spoke 
afterward  to  his  disciples.  I  am  not  informed  as  to  his 
belief  on  this  subject,  for  I  have  not  been  drawn  toward 
the  man  sufficiently  to  read  any  of  his  previous  religious 
(?)  books:  but  if  the  true  "Gospel  in  Brief"  ends  with 
the  death  of  our  Lord,  then  I  am  ready  to  say  with  Paul, 
"We  are  of  all  men  most  miserable." 

After  glancing  through  this  book,  and  reading  some 
portions  of  it  with  care,  I  am  more  than  ever  convinced 
of  two  things:  Mrst,  that  a  man  who  starts  out  to  change 
the  New  Testament  will  always  make  a  sorry  mess  of  it; 


196  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

and,  second,  that  if  a  man  with  some  originahty  and 
daring  has  the  hardihood  to  do  such  a  thing,  he  will  be 
applauded  by  the  same  kind  of  rabble  that  cried  out 
against  Jesus  and  the  apostles. 


[Apr.  10,  1897.] 

RATIONALISM'S    CLAIM    TO    EXCLUSIVE 
SCHOLARSHIP. 

This  is  the  title  of  the  leading  article  in  the  Homi- 
Ictic  Rcviczv  for  April.  It  is  from  the  pen  of  Pro- 
fessor Osgood,  of  Rochester  Theological  Seminary.  The 
author's  name  and  reputation  as  a  scholar  are  well 
known  to  the  readers  of  this  page.  The  article  is  so 
timely  and  so  strongly  written  that  I  give  the  greater 
part  of  my  space  for  this  week  to  an  abstract  of  it : 

After  all  the  discussion,  the  whole  Bible  is  still  before  us. 
It  was  given  to  each  man,  to  whom  it  comes  for  his  decision. 
He  is  responsible  for  that  decision.  He  can  not  put  it  off  on 
the  decision  of  any  other  man.  When  great  schools,  proud  and 
pretentious  of  their  learning,  were  found  in  Palestine,  Egypt, 
Asia  Minor  and  Europe,  the  Saviour  constantly  asked  those 
whom  he  addressed,  whether  peasant,  fisherman,  priest  or  scribe, 
"Have  ye  not  read?"  "Did  ye  never  read?"  "Why  even  of 
yourselves  judge  ye  not  what  is  right?"  And  as  this  same 
Saviour  is  the  final  and  universal  judge  of  men,  these  questions 
take  on  the  awful  solemnity  of  the  last  dread  decision.  Each 
one  of  us  must  decide  for  ourselves  what  is  and  shall  be  our 
relation  to  the  Bible  when  we  stand  before  the  Lamb  in  the 
midst  of  the  throne  to  render  our  final  account. 

For  some  years  past  a  criticism  of  the  Bible  has  been 
brought  into  our  land  from  Germany  and  Holland,  that  tells 
us  that  the  Bible  is  a  purely  human  book,  filled  with  contradic- 
tions, and  of  value  only  as  a  record  of  the  evolution  of  human 
thought.  Those  who  champion  it  among  us  tell  us  that  this 
criticism  has  received  the  suffrages  of  all  the  scholars;   that  if 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  197 

any  voice  is  raised  against  it,  that  voice  betrays  ignorance  and 
want  of  true  scholarship. 

When  we  ask,  Who  are  all  these  scholars?  we  are  told.  All 
the  professors  in  Protestant  universities  in  Germany,  very  many 
in  England,  Scotland  and  the  United  States.  And  how  many  of 
these  scholars  are  there?  Some  fifty  or  sixty.  xAre  they  all 
scholars  of  the  hrst  rank?  Xo.  A  few  are  men  of  great  natural 
abilities,  supplemented  by  large  learning;  but  the  majority  are 
men  of  very  moderate  ability,  who  follow  the  leaders,  and  make 
up  in  sound  what  is  wanting  in  weight.  As  the  personal  equation 
is  of  decisive  force  in  the  determination  of  all  questions  involving 
religion  and  morals,  we  ask.  What  do  the  authors  and  leaders 
of  this  criticism  believe  as  to  God  and  Christ  and  sin  and  salva- 
tion ?  These  authors  and  leaders  are  not  slow  to  tell  us  that 
they  do  not  believe  in  a  God  who  has  made  any  written  revela- 
tion of  himself,  or  in  Christ  as  anything  more  than  a  man.  Of 
sin  and  salvation  they  never  say  anything.  One  of  these  authors 
and  leaders  believed  so  little  in  God  that  he  did  not  mention 
him  except  as  spoken  by  others,  and  another  of  these  chief 
authors   proclaims  himself   a   polytheist. 

And  who  say  that  these  are  the  great  scholars,  and  all  the 
scholars  of  the  world,  in  the  matter  of  the  Bible?  Only  the  men 
of  their  own  party,  who  seldom  read  works  written  by  oppo- 
nents, and  deny  all  scholarship  to  men  who  will  not  accept  their 
premises  and  conclusions.  Believers  are  called  to  stand  and 
deliver  up  their  faith  in  God,  in  Christ,  in  sin,  in  salvation,  in 
God's  revelation  of  himself,  on  the  authority  of  this  band  of 
fifty  or  sixty,  led  by  unbelievers.  That  does  seem  rather  pre- 
tentious and  supercilious,  seeing  that  if  these  fifty  or  sixty  were 
swept  away  from  their  chairs  thrice  a  year,  their  places  could 
be  readily  supplied  with  just  as  good  scholars  from  believing 
Christian  ministers  at  home  or  in  the  mission  field. 

The  line  between  "real  scholars."  "all  the  scholars."  and 
"non-scholars,"  "no  scholars,"  has  been  accurately  drawn  by  an 
adherent  of  "all  the  scholars"  in  a  critical  journal:  "We  have 
no  taste  for  evangelical  criticism,  and  no  confidence  in  an 
author's  critical  power  whose  argument  is  derived  from  the 
authority  of  the  New  Testament."  "There  can  be  no  argument 
between  those  who  thus  think  and  historical  critics  of  any  school 
who  do  not  accept  their  theological  and  critical  postulates."  All 
who  bow  to  the  supreme  authority  of  God,  of  Christ,  are  thus 


198  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

waved  off  from  an  appreciation  which  they  never  sought,  and 
would  not  have  if  it  were  laid  in  their  hand.  They  divide  at 
Christ. 

The  only  persons,  then,  who,  according  to  this  school,  are 
real  scholars  and  competent  to  pass  an  opinion  on  their  views, 
are  men  of  their  own  band.  Let  us  see,  then,  what  two  leaders 
of  this  criticism  say  of  the  whole  method  of  criticism  pursued 
by  the  other.  Dillmann  and  Kuenen  were  men  of  real  ability,  of 
great  learning,  of  unceasing  labor.  They  were  the  leaders  of  the 
two  wings  of  precisely  the  same  general  anti-Biblical  criticism. 
By  some  scioloists  in  our  land,  Dillmann  has  been  regarded  as 
more  orthodox  than  Kuenen ;  but  his  premises  and  conclusions 
are  just  as  anti-Biblical  as  Ku  en  en's,  and  they  just  as  effectually 
would  sweep  away  all  belief  in  the  Bible  as  a  revelation  from 
God.  There  is  no  discount,  therefore,  to  be  placed  against  Dill- 
mann because  of  Biblical  or  orthodox  views.  He  criticizes  the 
whole  method  of  Kuenen  as  false  from  the  beginning  (Num. 
Joshua,  p.  597,  f.).  And  Kuenen  replies  that  Dillmann  pursues 
just  the  same  course  (Theol.  Tijdschrift,  v.  22,  p.  23  f.).  But 
lest  I  seem  to  mistake  the  facts,  one  of  "all  the  scholars"  shall 
state  them  for  us.  In  the  French  review  of  the  "History  of 
Religions,"  we  are  told :  "Kuenen  reproaches  Dillmann  with  con- 
sidering the  question  of  the  origin  of  the  Hexateuch  from  a 
purely  literary  point  of  view,  and  without  considering  the  rela- 
tions between  the  documents  analyzed  and  the  history.  The 
difference  in  the  method  is  striking.  Dillmann  accuses  the  critics 
of  the  school  of  Reuss  and  Kuenen  of  imagining  a  prion  a  reg- 
ular religious  evolution  in  the  midst  of  the  people  of  Israel, 
and  of  resting  upon  these  premises  to  determine  the  succession 
of  the  documents  combined  in  the  extant  Hexateuch.  Kuenen 
shows  Dillmann  that  he  does  the  same  thing,  and  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  follow  another  method,  unless  we  accept  the  history  as 
given  by  the  authors  of  the  Old  Testament."  Kuenen  says  that 
Dillmann,  by  refuring  to  consider  the  history,  and  relying  only 
on  the  literary  points,  reaches  false  results.  His  method  is 
false;  his  conclusions  are  false.  Dillmann  says  that  Kuenen's 
method  begins  in  pure  imagination  of  an  evolution  of  religion, 
and  ends  in  his  false  conclusion.  Kuenen  acknowledges  that  he 
does  just  what  Dillmann  says — imagines  the  evolution  of  religion, 
and  fits  the  history  to  this  imagined  religion  ;  and  he  also  says 
and  proves  that  Dillmann   does  the   same  thing ;    or   that,   when 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  199 

both  of  them  refuse  to  believe  the  history  given  in  the  Old 
Testament,  there  remains  no  other  course  but  an  imagined  re- 
ligion to  which  to  lit  an  imagined  history.  If  an  outsider — one 
of  the  "non-scholars" — had  brought  these  charges,  they  would 
be  met  with  denial,  because  he  could  not  understand  the  "only 
scholars."  Both  the  witnesses  are  true  against  each  other.  The 
method  on  both  sides  is  false,  and  the  result  of  this  "supreme 
scholarship"  is  just  as  false — an  imagined  religion  framed  in  an 
imagined  history.  And  yet  it  is  to  this  scholarship  that  Chris- 
tians, who  know  what  they  believe,  and  why  they  believe  it,  are 
called  to  surrender  on  authority  and  demand.  According  to 
these  two  chief  witnesses,  behind  the  dark  curtain  on  which  is 
inscribed  "all  the  scholars,"  there  is  nothing  for  a  believer  in 
God  and  Christ  and  his  word  to  fear,  since  the  space  is,  con- 
fessedly,  filled  only  with  imagination. 


[Apr.  II,  1897.] 

WASHINGTON  GLADDEN  ON  LYAIAN  ABBOTT. 

I  have  been  astonished  at  the  number  and  variety  of 
sermons  and  newspaper  articles  that  have  been  written 
on  Dr.  Abbott's  recently  published  views  about  evolution 
and  the  Book  of  Jonah.  From  every  point  of  the  com- 
pass, and  almost  from  ocean  to  ocean,  I  have  received 
clippings  from  newspapers,  religious  and  secular,  sent 
by  kind  friends  to  show  me  what  others  have  said  while 
I  was  saying  something  myself.  The  variety  of  the 
views  expressed  in  these  clippings  is  more  surprising 
than  their  number.  Some  are  very  sensible,  but  some 
on  both  sides  are  so  far  otherwise  as  to  indicate  on  the 
part  of  religious  writers  and  teachers  a  woeful  deficiency 
in  judgment  and  reflection.  To  judge  by  these  speci- 
mens one  would  think  that  there  is  a  deplorable  amount 
of  shallowness  in  the  thinking  of  preachers  and  news- 
paper writers  on  such  questions.  To  enter  extensively 
into   specifications   would   require   more   space   than   the 


200  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

case  would  seem  to  justify;  but  I  may  be  excused  for 
noticing  briefly  a  point  or  two  made  by  Washington 
Gladden  in  a  sermon  delivered  in  Columbus,  O.,  on  Sim- 
day,  March  30. 

Referring  to  a  large  number  of  intelligent  men  and 
women  "v/ho  are  more  or  less  familiar  with  the  general 
results  of  modern  scientific  and  historical  and  critical 
study,"  and  to  ''many  of  the  things  that  were  commonly 
taught  fifty  years  ago  respecting  science  and  literature 
and  life,"  which  these  people  can  not  now  believe,  he 
says : 

Thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of  serious-minded,  unself- 
ish men  and  women  have  been  driven  from  the  churches  by  this 
failure  to  separate  the  essential  Christian  truth  from  the  out- 
worn theories  with  which  it  has  been  entangled. 

This  may  be  true  with  respect  to  some  of  the  extreme 
Calvinism  once  taught  by  the  Congregationalists  with 
whom  Dr.  Gladden  is  identified,  but  when  he  includes 
with  this  the  long-established  ideas  of  the  origin  of  the 
world  and  truthfulness  of  the  Bible — for  these  are  the 
beliefs  to  which  he  more  especially  alludes — he  was 
never  "more  mistaken.  If  thousands  and  tens  of  thou- 
sands have  been  driven  away  from  the  churches  in  con- 
nection with  these  questions,  it  is  the  direct  effect  of 
propagating  the  very  view  respecting  "science  and  litera- 
ture and  life,"  which  Lyman  Abbott  advocates  with  the 
applause  of  Washington  Gladden.  It  is  the  men  and 
women  who  accept  these  views  who  are  driven  from  the 
churches,  and  not  those  who  oppose  them.  Who  has 
ever  heard  of  a  man  leaving  the  church  because  he  still 
believes  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch,  and  that  the 
narratives  in  Genesis  are  neither  myths  nor  legends,  but 
true  records  of  actual  events  ?  No  ;  the  evil  effects  spring 
from  the  opposite  cause ;  and  Dr.  Gladden,  like  a  pas- 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  201 

senger  on  a  train  when  another  near  it  bec^-ins  to  move, 
sees  the  wrong  train  in  motion. 

Again,  speaking  of  the  critics  of  Dr.  Abbott,  he  says: 

There  are  precious  few  of  them  who  do  not  know  that  the 
traditional  theory  of  the  Bible  is  no  longer  tenable;  yet  their 
attack  on  him  is  understood  to  maintain  that  theory.  It  is  high 
time  for  some  of  these  censors  to  cease  from  their  assaults  on 
Dr.  Abbott  and  the  higher  critics  long  enough  to  tell  the  con- 
gregation  the   simple   truth   about   the   Bible. 

This  is  an  open  charge  of  hypocrisy  made  against 
censors  of  Dr.  Abbott,  or  at  least  against  a  majority 
of  them,  and  these  the  more  intelligent.  A  man  of  his 
opportunities  ought  to  know  that  no  cause  ever  wins  by 
such  charges.  If  he  can  not  defend  his  companion  in 
misery  by  argument,  it  would  be  more  commendable  in 
him  to  give  up  the  contest  than  to  turn  to  maligning 
the  other  side.  The  fact  that  a  man  is  sincere  or  devout 
should  never  be  used,  though  it  often  is,  as  evidence 
that  his  positions  are  sound  or  his  arguments  valid  ;  it  is 
still  worse  to  parry  the  arguments  of  an  opponent  by 
charging  him  with  insincerity. 


[Apr.  i;,  1897.1 

CRITICIS:\I    IX    GERMANY. 

In  the  Occident  of  March  25.  I  find  an  article,  brief, 
hut  thoughtful,  from  the  pen  of  Air.  James  Woodworth, 
in  which  he  makes  the  following  quotation  from  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  Gazette,  one  of  the  most 
influential  journals  in  Germany : 

Although  among  the  university  men  there  have  been  very 
few  that  have  undertaken  to  defend  the  old  views  of  the  church 
with  reference  to  the  divine  character  of  the  Scriptures,  the 
rank  and  file  of  the  pastors  have  boldly  come  to  the   front  in 


302  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

this  good  work,  and  the  anti-critical  Biblical  literature  is  greater 
than  it  has  been  for  many  years. 

By  anti-critical  literature  is  meant  that  which  opposes 
the  theories  and  conclusions  of  the  recent  criticism. 

The  writer  in  the  Occident  says  that  this  is  truly  en- 
couraging, and  that  a  similar  encouraging  state  of  things 
exists  in  our  own  country.  "The  champions  of  the  new 
views,"  he  says,  "are  to  be  found  principally  not  in  the 
ranks  of  the  ministry,  but  in  those  of  the  college  and 
university  professors."  So  long  as  a  body  of  soinid  be- 
lievers in  the  truth  of  the  Bible  stand  in  between  these 
professors  and  the  people,  there  need  be  no  fear  of 
widespread  defection  among  the  latter  from  the  faith  of 
our  fathers.  Skeptical  scholars  will  empty  their  poison- 
ous gas  into  the  open  air,  where  it  will  be  dissipated 
without  spreading  its  contagion ;  and,  whatever  whiffs 
of  it  are  brought  down  by  counter  currents  into  the 
stratum  which  the  common  people  breathe,  will  be  fanned 
away  by  the  preachers. 

The  preachers  who  come  into  daily  contact  with  the 
people,  and  whose  daily  task  it  is  to  turn  sinners  to  the 
Lord,  know  perfectly  well  that  destructive  criticism  of 
the  Bible  tends  to  ruin  men,  and  not  to  save  them  ;  and, 
for  this  reason,  they  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  it 
except  to  combat  it  when  it  comes  in  their  way.  And  in 
this  combat  they  will  prevail ;  for  it  is  to  them,  and  not 
to  the  professors,  that  the  people  resort  for  their  daily 
spiritual  food.  Not  only  so,  but  the  few  young  preachers 
who  are  perverted  in  the  colleges  and  seminaries  where 
these  rationalistic  professors  do  their  work,  must  find 
that  the  kind  of  criticism  which  they  have  imbibed  will 
not  work  when  they  come  to  soul-saving.  The  serious 
men  among  them  will,  therefore,  toss  it  behind  their 
backs  when  they  go  before  the  people,  while  those  who 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  203 

are  not  sufficiently  in  earnest  to  do  this,  will  soon  find 
that  the  congregations  of  the  faithful  will  toss  them 
behind  their  backs  and  cling  to  the  old  Book.  The  pro- 
fessors in  the  infected  institutions  are  making  herculean 
efforts  to  draw  the  candidates  for  the  ministry  under 
their  influence,  and  they  are  succeeding  by  the  prestige  of 
money  and  great  names  in  drawing  those  who  have  more 
ambition  than  godliness  ;  but  this  class  are  always  light- 
weights in  the  pulpit,  even  if  they  stay  in  it  long  enough 
to  weigh  at  all ;  while  the  men  of  humility,  and  of  faith 
that  can  not  be  shaken,  are  the  men  in  every  age  and 
country  whom  the  people  delight  to  follow. 


[May  I,  1897.] 

A    REACTION    IX    CRITICIS:\I. 

The  following  clipping  from  the  Congrcgationalist  of 
April  I  refers  to  a  matter  mentioned  in  this  department 
last  week,  and  strongly  confirms  what  I  then  said : 

The  course  of  theological  thinking  in  this  country  has  fol- 
lowed somewhat  closely,  though  at  considerable  distance  of  time, 
that  in  Germany.  We  therefore  welcome  the  signs  of  reaction 
against  radicalism  which  are  appearing  in  the  German  church. 
The  Literary  Digest  publishes  a  translation  of  an  article  de- 
scribing a  new  movement,  from  the  ablest  of  the  conservative 
church  papers  of  Germany.  This  article  declares  that  "the  lib- 
eral and  liberalizing  forces  within  the  German  church  have  in 
recent  months  lost  considerable  ground,  and  the  beginning  of 
the  end  seems  at  hand.  Qn  the  other  hand,  the  defense  of  the 
old  faith  has  grown  internally  and  externally." 

Special  courses  of  lectures  in  the  interests  of  what 
is  called  the  old  faith  are  being  successfully  maintained 
in  many  places.  Says  this  article,  "Recent  events  have 
shown  that  in  Germany  the  Protestant  church  is  at 
heart  thoroughly  evangelical  and  loves  its  Bible  above 


204  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

everything  else."  In  the  same  direction  the  Chronik,  a 
representative  of  the  hberal  theology,  confesses  that  the 
conservative  theologians  in  the  nine  Prussian  universities 
are  numerically  much  stronger  than  the  liberals.  There 
are  sixteen  liberal  and  twenty-six  conservative  theolo- 
gians in  the  university  faculties  of  the  old  Prussian  prov- 
inces, and  in  the  newer  provinces  there  are  eight  liberals 
and  nine  conservatives.  Twice  as  many  conservatives 
as  liberals  have  been  appointed  by  the  Government  within 
the  last  two  years.  Many  pastors  are  rallying  to  the 
defense  of  the  divine  character  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
the  literature  for  the  same  purpose  is  greater  than  it  has 
been  for  many  years.  The  effects  of  this  reaction  are 
already  beginning  to  be  felt  in  our  seminaries,  and  an 
independent  movement  in  the  same  direction  is  appearing 
both  in  institutions  of  learninsf  and  in  churches. 


[June  5.   1897.1 

PARALLEL  CASES. 

One  of  the  most  effective  devices  for  refuting  the 
arguments  and  exposing  the  assumptions  by  which  some 
higher  critics  discredit  books  in  the  Bible,  is  to  apply  the 
same  methods  to  more  recent  documents  that  are  known 
to  be  genuine  and  authentic,  and  thus  show  how  futile 
they  are.  This  has  been  done  again  and  again  by  recent 
scholars,  who  have  used  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  the 
parable  of  the  prodigal  son,  etc.,  for  the  purpose.  Many 
other  well-known  documents  can  be  used  in  the  same 
way.  I  have  before  me,  for  example,  in  a  copy  of  the 
Bulletin,  San  Francisco,  a  lecture  by  Dr.  William  Alex- 
ander, of  that  city,  in  which  he  applies  the  method  to  the 
history  of  our  war  with  Mexico,  to  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,   and  to  the  history  of   German  criticism 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  205 

itself.     I  copy  below  the  first  of  these  as  an  illustration 
of  all: 

Let  us,  for  example,  take  a  history  so  recent  as  the  v.-ar 
between  the  United  States  and  Mexico  and  the  acquisition  of 
California.  And  let  us  suppose  that  we  are  living  in  the  year 
A.  D.  5897,  when  our  country  has  been  reduced  to  the  same 
condition  as  that  of  ancient  Israel.  Then  comes  a  higher  critic 
investigating  the  records  of  our  history,  as  they  now  do  those 
of  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  result  would  be  something  like  this : 

California  is  represented  in  the  legend  as  a  part  of  an  alleged 
conquest  from  Alexico.  But  the  evidence  of  any  such  war  as  that 
is  open  to  very  grave  doubt.  In  the  documents  Vv^hich  pretend 
to  relate  this  history  even  the  very  names  are  suspicious,  being 
for  the  most  part  not  the  names  of  persons,  but  of  some  occupa- 
tion or  calling,  or  of  some  article  of  domestic  use.  Records  have 
been  found  bearing  such  names  as  Taylor,  Worth,  Ringgold, 
Wool,  Pillow,  and  of  such  reputed  battles  as  Resaca  de  la 
Palma,  which  probably  means  merely  a  grove  of  palms,  and  not 
a  battle  at  all.  And  another  battle  is  named  Buena  Vista,  which 
probably  means  only  a  fine  prospect,  or  a  pleasant  view.  And 
what  is  still  more  to  the  purpose,  different  and  conflicting  ac- 
counts of  the  same  thing  have  been  dug  up.  According  to 
another  form  of  the  legend,  the  conquest  was  effected  by  a  man 
whose  name  was  Scott.  And  here  again  the  story  can  hardly 
be  considered  historic,  for  the  hero  of  this  alleged  conquest  is 
called  Winfield,  and  all  military  heroes  are  alleged  to  win  fields. 
And  still  further,  in  some  of  the  remains  this  same  mythical 
hero  is  called  "Fuss  and  Feathers." 

He  is  alleged  to  have  invaded  the  country  called  ]\Iexico  by 
sea,  and  to  have  bombarded  a  city  called  Vera  Cruz  which  does 
not  seem  to  have  been  a  city  at  all,  but  in  the  language  of  the 
IMexicans  means  the  true  cross.  The  mythical  hero,  the  legend 
goes  on  to  say,  advanced  by  way  of  Cerro  Gordo,  a  steep  and 
difficult  pass  in  the  mountains  which  a  mule  with  his  pack  could 
with  difficulty  pass,  but  was  utterly  impracticable  for  an  army, 
even  if  but  feebly  defended;  but  that  a  warlike  people  like  the 
Mexicans  would  allow  a  hostile  army  to  penetrate  to  the  very 
heart  of  their  country  without  the  most  determined  resistance, 
is  utterly  incredible,  not  to  say  inconceivable.  And,  besides, 
both  of  these  legends,  improbable  as  they  are.  and  contradictory 


2o6  SHORT   ESSAYS  IN 

as  they  are,  can  be  traced  solely  to  American  sources.  In  one 
thing  they  agree,  and  in  one  only,  that  no  disaster  ever  occurred 
to  their  arms,  but  they  were  victorious  in  every  encounter,  a 
story  which  is  totally  at  variance  with  the  known  casualties  of 
war,  and  stamps  the  whole  thing  as  one  of  the  heroic  legends  of 
a  barbarous  or  a  semi-civilized  people.  This,  gentlemen,  may  be 
taken,  mutatis  tmitandis,  for  the  higher  criticism  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch,  as  the  critics  prefer  to  call  it.  The  principles  and  meth- 
ods are  the  same  in  both,  and  both  are  equally  worthless  and 
misleading. 


[June   19,    1897.] 
DRIVER    ON    DEUTERONOMY. 

The  commentary  on  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  by 
Prof.  S.  R.  Driver,  was  the  first  volume  to  appear  of 
the  ''International  Critical  Commentary"  in  course  of 
publication  by  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  of  New  York, 
and  T.  &  T.  Clark,  of  Edinburgh.  It  is  also  the  most 
important  of  the  series  thus  far  published,  because  of  its 
bearing  on  the  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch.  It  was  pub- 
lished in  1895,  but  I  have  forborne  to  read  it  or  to  write 
a  notice  of  it  until  now,  because  I  intended,  on  taking 
hold  of  it,  to  give  it  a  thorough  study,  and  the  time  for 
this  has  not  appeared  to  come  sooner. 

It  is  very  seldom,  I  .suppose,  that  any  one  but  the 
author  and  the  proofreader  reads  a  commentary  through 
and  through  ;  but  I  have  read  this  one  carefully  from 
cover  to  cover,  and  I  expect  to  do  so  again  and  again  ; 
for  the  critical  theory  of  this  book  is  the  keystone  of  the 
critical  arch  which  spans  the  whole  of  the  Pentateuch: 
and  no  man  can  know  either  the  strength  or  the  weak- 
ness of  the  latter  without  testing  the  merits  of  what  the 
critics  say  of  this  book. 

The  volume  is  a  large  one  to  be  devoted  to  so  small 
a  book  as  Deuteronomy.     It  contains  ninety-five  pages 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  207 

of  introduction  and  426  pages  of  text — 521  pages  in  all. 
The  critical  theory  of  the  book  is  set  forth,  and,  in  a 
measure,  defended,  in  the  introduction ;  but  the  more 
elaborate  defense  is  reserved  for  the  main  body  of  the 
work,  and  it  is  to  be  found  in  connection  with  the  vari- 
ous passages  used  for  the  purpose.  The  argument  is 
exhaustive,  and  yet  it  is  condensed.  The  author  wastes 
no  words  in  attempts  at  fine  writing,  but  goes  right  on 
with  the  simplest  and  most  direct  exposition  of  his 
theme.  lie  also  maintains  an  air  of  candor,  and  seldom 
indulges  in  overconfident  assertions.  He  usually  states 
and  discusses  dispassionately  the  objections  that  have 
been  urged  against  his  views,  though  in  places  he  fails 
to  notice  very  obvious  objections  which  happen  not  to 
have  been  brought  forward  by  former  writers.  Indeed, 
while  he  is  not  afraid  to  state  fairly,  and  to  answer  as 
best  he  can,  the  views  of  opposing  critics,  he  evidently 
has  made  no  careful  search  to  see  what  could  be  said, 
though  it  had  not  been,  by  an  opponent. 

Xo  one  who  proposes  to  master  the  modern  critical 
theory  of  the  Old  Testament  can  afford  to  avoid  the 
study  of  this  commentary;  for  though  the  author  has 
set  forth  in  a  very  condensed  form  in  his  "Introduction 
to  the  Critical  Study  of  the  Old  Testament"  the  sub- 
stance of  what  is  here  written,  in  the  present  volume  he 
has  gone  into  the  details  of  the  argument  much  more 
elaborately,  and  the  reader  finds  here  plainly  set  forth 
much  that  he  in  the  more  condensed  form  is  apt  to  over- 
look. I  suppose  that  Professor  Driver's  reputation  as  a 
critic  will  depend  more  hereafter  on  the  present  than 
on  the  former  publication,  though  the  reverse  is  true  at 
present.  His  Introduction  has  been  more  extensively; 
read  than  his  Deuteronomy,  and  has  therefore  done  more 
to  establish  his  reputation. 


2o8  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

[July  17.  1897.] 

HELL    AND    THE    DEVIL. 

I  have  received  two  copies  of  the  Rocky  Mountain 
Nezv'S,  pnbHshed  at  Denver,  June  7,  in  which  there  is  a 
sensational  report  of  a  sermon  dehvered  the  previous 
evening  by  Barton  O.  Aylesworth  to  an  overflowing 
audience.  The  sermon  is  announced  in  flaming  head- 
Hues,  among  which  I  read,  "There  is  No  Hell,  Neither 
is  There  Proof  of  a  Personal  Devil."  The  chief  part 
of  the  report  of  the  sermon  is  printed  within  quotation 
marks,  as  representing  the  words  of  the  speaker;  and 
while  these  headlines  do  not  precisely  represent  the 
thought  of  the  sermon,  they  do  so  substantially. 

The  preacher  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  "in  the 
universe  there  are  two  forces  working  constantly  against 
each  other,"  and  remarks:  "Philosophy  says  it  is  the 
negative  or  not-being  struggling  to  overcome  the  posi- 
tive or  actual,  so  that  the  former  is  always  yielding  that 
the  latter  may  be."  I  confess  that  I  am  not  philosopher 
enough  to  see  how  "the  negative  or  the  not-being"  can 
carry  on  a  struggle,  li  philosophy  says  that,  I  should 
advise  philosophy  to  wash  its  face  and  go  to  school. 
Farther  on  he  says :  "This  negative  element  is  hell.  It 
is  the  failure  of  the  man  to  rise  to  his  own  perfection." 
If  this  definition  is  correct,  and  if,  as  all  admit,  except 
the  few  Methodists  who  have  obtained  "the  second 
blessing,"  that  all  men  have  thus  far  failed  to  rise  to 
their  own  perfection,  we  should  no  longer  talk  about 
g^oing  to  hell,  because  we  are  there  already.  It  is  a  hell, 
however,  which  the  most  of  us  endure  with  martyr-like 
composure.  It  causes  very  little  weeping  and  gnashing 
of  teeth. 

Again,  our  preacher  says:  "Hell  is  an  illogical  con- 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  209 

dition  of  life."  If  this  is  true,  we  are  nearly  all  caught 
agahi.  'ilien  ail  tne  "higher  critics"  arc  in  hell,  sure. 
1  ney  got  tnere  sooner  than  i  thought  they  would.  Then 
JJro.  Aylesworth  himself  must  be  "slipping  o'er  the 
brink,"  for  1  have  not  seen  anything  lately  more  illogical 
than  his  sermon.  .  1  am  so  glad  that  1  am  not  illogical. 
Then,  too,  another  old  thought  of  ours  is  corrected.  We 
have  always  been  taught,  at  least  ever  since  Christ  spoke 
on  the  subject,  that  it  is  only  dead  people  who  are  in 
hell ;  but  here  we  learn  that  it  is  the  living,  for  hell  is 
"an  illogical  condition  of  life."  I  never  knew  before 
how  important  it  is  to  study  logic. 

Again,  the  preacher  says :  "I  do  not  believe  that  hell 
is  a  place  of  physical  torture.  I  think  it  is  in  man  him- 
self." This  is  another  evidence  that  hell  is  already  here, 
and  every  man  ought  to  know  what  it  is  by  looking 
inside  himself  ;  but  this  presents  a  puzzle.  Jesus  speaks  of 
casting  men  into  hell :  and  if  hell  is  in  the  man  himself, 
I  don't  see  how  he  can  be  cast  into  it  unless  he  is  made 
to  swallow  himself.  Again,  Jesus  proposes  to  cast  some 
men  into  hell  after  they  are  dead ;  and  I  don't  see  how 
this  can  be  done  if  they  have  hell  in  them  while  they 
are  yet  alive.  I  confess  that  I  have  not  logic  enough  to 
unravel  this  tangle,  and  if  all  these  things  are  true,  I 
am  afraid  that  I  will  become  illogical  and  get  into  hell 
with  Bro.  Aylesworth  and  the  "higher  critics." 

The  preacher,  in  all  these  utterances,  was  not  entirely 
forgetful  of  some  things  said  by  Jesus  and  the  apostles, 
but  he  has  a  very  summary  way  of  setting  them  aside. 
He  says :  "The  flames  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures  are 
figuratively  spoken  of."  This  statement  would  have 
been  more  satisfactory  if  he  had  told  us  how  he  knows 
it  to  be  true.  He  has  never  been  there  to  see,  and  no 
one  who  has  absolute  knowledge  on  the  subject  has  told 


210  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

him  so.  How,  then,  does  he  know  anything  about  it? 
I  have  studied  the  subject  as  much,  perhaps,  as  he  has, 
and  all  that  I  know  about  it  is  what  I  am  told  in  the 
word  of  God.  Jesus,  who  had  seen  it,  and 'the  apostles, 
who  were  guided  by  the  Spirit  who  knows  all  about  it, 
have  described  it  as  a  lake  that  burns  with  fire  and  brim- 
stone ;  and  whether  that  is  exactly  what  it  is  or  not,  one 
thing  is  certain,  that  the  words  of  these  divinely  inspired 
teachers  are  the  very  best  words  in  which  to  speak  of 
it.  If  it  had  been  better  for  us  to  be  told  that  hell  is 
within  us  now,  that  hell  is  an  illogical  condition  of  life, 
or  that  it  is  ''the  negative  or  the  not-being,"  Jesus,  who 
knew  what  words  were  best  for  its  expression,  would 
have  said  so;  but,  instead  of  any  such  phraseology,  he 
calls  it  "the  everlasting  fire  prepared  for  the  devil  and 
his  angels."  Who  shall  dare  to  soften  the  words  which 
the  solemn  reality  forced  from  the  loving  soul  of  Jesus? 
This  brings  us  to  what  the  preacher  says  of  that 
mysterious  being  called  the  devil  and  Satan:  'Tn  regard 
to  the  existence  of  a  personal  devil,  I  have  but  little  to 
say.  Some  people  say  that  he  certainly  does  have  his 
fires  constantly  in  readiness,  and  is  armed  with  the  pro- 
verbial fork  wherewith  to  stab  the  victims.  I  do  not 
believe  this.  I  can  not  induce  my  imagination  to  be 
sufficiently  elastic  to  comprehend  an  evil  one  fighting 
against  the  Lord  to  obtain  the  position  of  ruler  of  the 
universe."  The  preacher  would  have  done  better  in  this 
sentence  if,  instead  of  mentioning  these  relics  of  nursery 
tales,  he  had  said  whether  he  believes  what  Bible  readers 
of  ordinary  intelligence  do  believe  on  this  subject;  that 
is,  whether  he  believes  what  Christ  and  the  apostles  say 
about  the  devil.  Instead  of  saying  yea  or  nay  on  this 
point,  he  launches  out  on  an  ocean  of  discovery,  and 
entertains    us    with    the    following:    ''Still,    the    unclean 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  211 

spirits  may  hold  an  election  and  choose  for  their  leader 
the  one  member  who  has  caused  the  most  hearts  to  break 
and  created  the  most  devastation  among  the  innocent 
and  unsuspecting.  This  is  a  possibility.  Herod  and 
Nero  may  have  held  the  position  of  devil;  I  am  of  the 
opinion  that  some  of  the  writers  of  modern  fiction  are 
also  candidates  to  fill  that  executive  position."  Well,  if 
there  are  elections  among  the  unclean  spirits,  and  if  we 
are  to  judge  by  elections  in  this  world,  there  must  be  a 
vast  amount  of  rascality  in  those  elections,  and  it  should 
be  no  wonder  that  bad  fellows  get  into  office.  It  might 
be  a  good  idea  to  send  Bro.  Aylesworth  over  there  (tem- 
porarily, of  course)  with  a  copy  of  the  Australian  secret 
ballot  law,  so  that  the  next  election  will  be  an  honest 
one,  "a  free  ballot  and  a  fair  count,"  and  a  devil  elected 
who  will  make  it  a  little  easier  for  us  mortals.  I  have 
understood,  however,  that  the  old  devil  who  was  in  ofiice 
before  Herod  and  Xero  went  to  that  country  had  a  life- 
time tenure,  and  as  his  death  has  not  been  announced, 
nor  any  funeral  tickets  sent  out,  I  am  afraid  that  he  is 
still  in  power,  and  leading  silly  men,  mcluding  some 
preachers,  captive  at  his  will. 


[Oct.  2.  1897.] 

MUCH    ADO    ABOUT    XOTHIXG. 

This  saying  of  Shakespeare  was  never  more  strik- 
ingly verified  than  in  the  learned  labor  that  has  been 
wasted  in  seeking  to  decide  what  star  it  was  that  the 
wise  men  saw  in  the  east  when  Jesus  was  born.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  Kepler  calculated  backward  the 
movements  of  the  planets  to  the  time  of  Christ,  and 
found  that  there  was  a  conjunction  of  Jupiter  and 
Saturn  about  that  time.     Alford  and  Kitto  both  adopted 


212  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

the  view  that  this  remarkable  conjunction  of  the  two 
planets  was  the  new  star.  It  would  be  incredible,  if  it 
were  not  actually  demonstrated,  that  learned  men  like 
these  could  leave  the  text,  which  they  are  trying  to 
explain,  and  wander  off  in  this  manner  for  a  conclusion 
which  when  reached  could  avail  them  nothing.  Suppose 
that  there  was  a  conjunction  of  Jupiter  and  Saturn,  or 
a  conjunction  of  any  half-dozen  planets,  what  could  that 
have  had  to  do  with  the  star  seen  by  the  wise  men? 
The  star  which  they  saw  came  and  stood  over  the  place 
where  the  young  child  lay,  so  that  they  found  him  with- 
out search  or  inquiry.  Did  Jupiter  or  Saturn,  or  both 
in  conjunction,  come  and  stand  over  the  house  in  Beth- 
lehem where  Jesus  and  his  mother  were  lodging?  Why 
did  not  Kepler  or  Alford  or  Kitto  ask  himself  this  ques- 
tion, and  save  himself  the  learned  nonsense  which  he 
perpetrated?  When  we  witness  such  conceits  on  the 
part  of  these  three  men,  we  are  not  so  much  surprised 
at  the  still  wilder  conceits  indulged  in  by  some  of  the 
rationalistic  critics.  And  this  nonsense  is  not  dead  yet ; 
for  in  so  grave  a  critical  journal  as  the  Expository 
Times  (September  number)  a  writer  seriously  calls  for 
more  information  in  the  line  of  Kepler's  investigations. 


[July  21,  1897.] 

PROFESSOR    HOMMEL'S    PROTEST. 

The  latest  German  book  in  the  reactionary  movement 
against  rationalistic  criticism  is  that  of  Dr.  Fritz  Hom- 
mel,  professor  of  Semitic  languages  at  the  University 
of  Munich.  Its  full  title  is  "The  Ancient  Hebrew  Tradi- 
tion as  Illustrated  by  the  Monuments.  A  Protest  against 
the  Modern  School  of  Criticism."  It  was  published 
simultaneously  in  Germany,  Great  Britain  and  America. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  213 

The  British  edition  was  issued  in  London  by  the  "So- 
ciety for  the  Promotion  of  Christian  Knowledge,"  and 
the  American  in  New  York  by  E.  &  J.  B.  Young  &  Co., 
Cooper  Union,  Fourth  Avenue.  We  received  our  copy 
through  the  courtesy  of  the  Robert  Clark  Co.,  Cincin- 
nati.    It  is  a  i2mo,  pp.  xvi,  350. 

Professor  Hommel  is  an  acknowledged  authority  in 
Semitic  languages  and  in  archaeology.  He  ranks  as  such 
in  Germany  very  much  as  Professor  Sayce  does  in  Eng- 
land. Professor  Cheyne,  in  some  discussions  which  he 
has  held  with  him,  treats  him  with  respectful  deference. 

In  his  preface  the  author  approaches  a  statement  of 
the  chief  design  of  his  work  by  saying: 

For  years  past  I  have  been  convinced  that  the  question  of 
the  authenticity  of  the  ancient  Hebrew  tradition  could  not  be 
finally  decided  until  the  Hebrew  personal  names  found  in  the 
Old  Testament  had  first  been  exhaustively  compared  with  other 
contemporary  names  of  similar  formation,  and  carefully  checked 
1)y  them ;  that  all  that  was  needed  was  the  hand  of  an  expert  to 
disclose  the  treasures  hitherto  concealed  in  them,  and  to  set 
forth  the  evidence  they  contain  in  such  clear  and  convincing 
fashion  as  to  render  all  further  discussion  impossible. 

Fie  then  mentions  an  effort  in  this  direction  made 
twenty-one  years  ago  by  Eberhard  Xestle,  in  which  he 
divided  Hebrew  names  into  three  classes.  First,  those 
compounded  with  El  (God)  ;  second,  those  belonging  to 
the  period  between  Joshua  and  Solomon  (or  Elijah), 
in  which  the  divine  name  Yahveh  comes  to  occupy  a 
favored  place  with  El,  the  name  of  the  Canaanite  deity 
Baal  (Lord)  being  subsequently  added;  and,  lastly,  the 
names  of  the  monarchical  period,  containing,  almost 
without  exception,  the  element  Yahveh  ( Yo,  Yahu  or 
Yah),  and  thus  bearing  witness  to  the  permanent  victory 
of  Yahveli  over  Baal.  He  then  says  that  "this  attempt 
of    Xestle's    might    have    found    acceptance    as    a    solu- 


214  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

tion  of  the  Pentateuchal  problem,  had  not  Wellhausen 
roundly  asserted  that  the  personal  names  of  the  Mosaic 
period  to  be  found  in  the  priestly  code  had  been  delib- 
erately manufactured  in  later  times  after  an  earlier  pat- 
tern, and  that  their  testimony  was  consequently  worth- 
less." The  issue  thus  made  by  Wellhausen,  demanding 
proof  of  Nestle's  theory,  moved  our  author,  in  part,  to 
his  present  undertaking.     He  says : 

One  of  the  main  objects,  therefore,  which  I  have  kept  before 
me  in  writing  the  present  book,  has  1)een  to  adduce  external 
evidence  (/.  e.,  from  contemporary  inscriptions)  to  show  that 
even  from  the  time  of  Abraham  onwards  personal  names  of 
the  characteristically  Mosaic  type  were  in  actual  use  among  a 
section  of  the  Semites  of  western  Asia,  and  that  it  is  con- 
sequently useless  to  talk  any  longer  of  a  later  post-exilic  inven- 
tion. On  the  contrary,  the  theory  of  their  evolution  put  for- 
ward by  Nestle  is  confirmed  and  corroborated  in  every  direction. 

T  think  that  any  man  who  will  read  the  book  through, 
unless  his  mind  is  set  against  evidence,  must  see  that  the 
author  has  established  this  contention  by  evidence  thor- 
oughly convincing  and  superabundant.  The  inscriptions 
on  which  he  chiefly  relies  are  those  found  recently  in 
Tel-el- Amarna  in  -Egypt,  at  Lachish  in  Palestine,  and 
at  Tel  Sifr  in  southern  Babylonia,  though  he  makes  use 
also  of  those  recently  discovered  by  Glaser  in  South 
Arabia.  These  documents  belong  to  a  period  at  and 
before  the  time  of  Abraham,  and  they  promi'^e,  when 
fully  deciphered,  to  give  us  a  new  history  of  the  world 
in  that  remote  period  in  which  the  Book  of  Genesis  was, 
until  lately,  our  only  authority.  Of  the  vabi^  of  the'^e 
documents  and  the  importance  of  studying  them  more 
thoroughly,  our  author  says : 

The  monuments  speak  with  no  faltering  tongue,  and  already 
I  seem  to  see  signs  of  the  approach  of  a  new  era,  in  which  m-^n 
will  be  able  to  brush  aside  the  cobweb  theories  of  the  so-called 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  215 

"higher  critics"  of  the  Pentateuch,  and,  leaving  such  old-fash- 
ioned errors  behind  them,  attain  to  a  clear  perception  of  the  real 
facts. 

Again  he  says : 

I  take  this  opportunity  of  urging  the  younger  school  of  Old 
Testament  theologians  to  abandon  their  barren  speculations  in 
regard  to  the  source  of  this  or  that  fraction  of  a  verse,  and 
rather  to  devote  their  youthful  energies  to  the  far  more  profit- 
able study  of  the  Assyro-Babylonian  and  South  Arabian  inscrip- 
tions, in  order  that  they  may  be  able,  at  first  hand,  to  place  the 
output  of  these  absolutely  inexhaustible  mines  of  knowledge  at 
the  service  of  Biblical  students.  .  .  .  There  are  hundreds  of 
contract  tablets  of  the  time  of  Abraham,  any  one  of  which  may 
contain  some  interesting  find. 

One  of  the  most  surprising  results  already  attained 
by  these  investigations  is  the  outline  which  they  furnish 
of  the  new  ancient  history  just  alluded  to.  Heretofore 
our  whole  knowledge  of  the  world's  history  between  the 
flood  and  the  death  of  Abraham  has  been  confined  to 
the  personal  history  of  that  patriarch,  together  with  the 
ethnographical  tables  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  Genesis. 
Now,  it  is  well  known  that  conquerors  from  southe/n 
Arabia  had  overrun  the  valle}'  of  the  Euphrates  about 
the  time  of  Abraham's  birth,  and  established  a  kingdom 
there  which  lasted  more  than  a  hundred  years.  The 
names  of  the  successive  kings,  together  with  some  of 
their  achievements,  are  preserved.  It  is  also  known  that 
an  Elamite  kingdom  was  established  there,  and  that  it 
had  subdued  all  the  region  west  of  the  Euphrates  as  far 
as  the  Mediterranean  Sea  and  the  border  of  Eg>'pt. 
These  invasions  brought  the  literature  and  civilization 
of  Babylonia  into  Canaan,  and  the  cuneiform  writing  of 
Babylon  became  the  medium  of  written  communication 
between  the  nations  of  the  West.  This  and  much  more 
having  been  ascertained  from  the  merest  fragments  of 


2i6  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

these  disinterred  documents,  that  which  will  be  known 
when  thousands  of  others  shall  have  been  exhumed  and 
deciphered  may  surpass  the  present  dreams  of  the  most 
enthusiastic  archaeologists.  It  certainly  offers  aspiring 
scholars  a  most  enticing  field  of  investigation.  The 
newly  discovered  gold  mines  of  Alaska  are  not  half  so 
inspiring  to  those  who  seek  the  world's  greatest  good. 
Professor  Hommel's  book  makes  a  great  advance  upon 
all  that  has  been  written  before  upon  these  new  dis- 
coveries. 

It  is  impossible  in  this  article  to  set  forth  intelligibly 
the  many  refutations  of  recent  critical  theories  respect- 
ing the  Pentateuch,  in  which  this  book  abounds.  For  a 
knowledge  of  them  I  must  refer  the  reader  to  the  book 
itself,  and  I  earnestly  advise  all  who  are  paying  any 
attention  to  the  subject  to  read  it  at  once.  But  I  must 
not  refrain  from  showing  how  completely  the  "higher 
critics"  have  been  silenced  in  regard  to  the  fourteenth 
chapter  of  Genesis.  In  1869,  Theodar  Noldeke  set  forth 
the  theory  that  this  chapter  was  a  "fantastic  grouping 
together  of  names,  which  either  belonged  to  some  remote 
period,  or  were  expressly  invented  for  the  occasion ;" 
and  from  that  time  this  class  of  critics  have  re-echoed 
the  same  view.  As  late  as  1889  Wellhausen  wrote  as 
follows : 

Noldeke's  criticism  remains  unshaken  and  unanswerable; 
that  four  kings  from  the  Persian  Gulf  should,  "in  the  time  of 
Abraham,"  have  made  an  incursion  into  the  Sinaitic  peninsula, 
that  they  should  on  this  occasion  have  attacked  five  kinglets  on 
the  Dead  Sea  littoral  and  have  carried  them  off  prisoners,  and 
finally  that  Abraham  should  have  set  out  in  pursuit  of  the 
retreating  victors,  accompanied  by  318  men-servants,  and  have 
forced  them  to  disgorge  their  prey — all  these  incidents  are  sheer 
impossibilities,  which  gain  nothing  in  credibility  from  the  fact 
that  they  are  placed  in  a  world  which  has  passed  away. — Hom- 
mel,  pp.  159,  198. 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  217 

This  was  written  only  eight  years  ago,  yet  within 
that  short  time  it  has  been  demonstrated  that  the  most 
of  these  incidents,  instead  of  being  "sheer  niipossibih- 
ties,"  are  estabhshed  facts  of  history.  That  a  mighty 
despot  whose  name  corresponds  to  Chedorlaomer  then 
ruled  over  Elam  (afterward  called  Persia),  and  that  he 
had  conquered  the  West  as  far  as  the  Mediterranean,  is 
not  now  denied:  for  abundant  inscriptions  attest  the 
fact.  That  Eri-Akn  (Arioch)  was  then  in  possession  of 
Ur,  Abraham's  birthplace ;  that  Amrophel  was  king  of 
Shinar  and  ruled  over  Haran,  the  second  home  of  Abra- 
ham, and  that  Tidal  (Tudkhul  in  his  own  tongue)  was 
also  a  contemporary  king,  are  equally  well  established; 
and  seeing  that  these  main  facts  of  the  narrative  are 
historical  realities,  the  admission  of  them  by  the  "critics" 
is,  in  the  words  of  Professor  Hommel,  "to  cut  the 
ground  away  from  under  their  own  feet." 

While  all  this,  and  very  much  more,  is  set  forth  in 
Professor  Hommel's  book,  he  is  still  a  rather  free  critic 
himself.  He  is  only  a  little  more  than  half-way  con- 
verted to  full  faith  in  the  authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  he  still  concedes  much  to  the  class  of  critics  whom 
he  antagonizes.  The  editor  of  the  Expository  Times,  in 
a  review  of  the  book,  makes  use  of  this  fact  to  nullify 
in  some  degree  the  force  of  his  contention ;  but  its  true 
bearing  is  in  the  opposite  direction,  for  the  fact  that 
Hommel  is  himself  a  free  critic  makes  all  the  more  sig- 
nificant his  thorough  refutation  of  his  fellow-critics  on 
the  points  of  criticism  which  he  assails.  The  light  which 
has  broken  upon  his  mind,  and  which  he  so  strongly 
flashes  back  into  the  minds  of  others,  must  inevitably 
affect  all  others  who  are  not  proof  against  conviction; 
and  as  the  still  unexplored  treasures  of  knowledge  which 
he  so  earnestly  exhorts  young  theologians  to  investigate, 


2i8  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

shall  yield  up  their  secrets,  both  his  own  mind  and  those 
of  his  present  antagonists  must  follow  whither  the  new 
light  shall  lead  them 


[Sept.  II,  1897.1 
A    CURIOSITY    IN    CRITICISM. 

It  has  been  the  custom  of  rationalistic  critics  to  throw 
doubt  on  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  of  James,  by- 
assigning  it  a  date  too  late  for  James  to  have  been  its 
author.  Christian  Baur  placed  it  at  the  close  of  the  first 
century,  and  his  followers  have  held  tenaciously  to  this 
date,  but  now  come  two  critics,  Spitta  and  Massebieau, 
contending  that  it  was  written  by  a  Jew,  not  a  Christian, 
in  the  century  preceding  the  birth  of  Christ.  Their 
arguments  are  reviewed  in  the  Expositor  for  August, 
by  J.  B.  Mayor,  and,  strange  to  say,  he  thinks  that  they 
are  stronger  than  those  for  the  late  date  alleged  by 
Baur.  He  shows,  however,  which  any  reader  of  the 
Epistle  ought  to  see,  that  in  order  to  make  out  their  case 
these  critics  have  to  reject  from  the  text  allusions  to 
Christ  which  make  it  certain  that  the  writer  had  a 
knowledge  of  our  Lord,  even  if  he  did  falsely  call  him- 
self "J^"^^'^'  2.  servant  of  God  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ." 

When  we  find  German  and  French  critics  constantly 
hatching  out  successive  broods  of  hare-brained  conjec- 
tures like  this,  we  ought  to  learn  caution  about  receiving 
anything  from  their  hands  that  savors  of  novelty. 


[Sept.  II,  1897.] 
INTELLECTUAL    FREEDOM. 
The  requested  resignation  of  President  Andrews,  of 
Brown    University,    on    account    of    his    partisanship    in 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  219 

favor  of  "free  silver,"  following,  as  it  did,  the  removal, 
in  late  years,  from  high  places,  of  quite  a  number  of 
men  for  teaching  condemned  by  the  churches  to  which 
they  belonged,  has  raised  a  howl  of  indignation  from  a 
large  circle  of  secular  and  religious  newspaper  writers. 
These  indignant  gentlemen  are  clamoring  for  intellectual 
freedom,  the  right  of  untrammeled  research,  of  unfet- 
tered liberty,  of  impartial  inquiry,  and  I  know  not  how 
many  other  things  with  high-sounding  epithets  attached 
to  them,  as  if  the  thumbscrews  of  the  Inquisition  were 
about  to  be  renewed.  So  loud  is  the  clamor  that  one 
who  is  not  moved  to  join  in  the  cry  is  apt  to  be  dazed, 
and  to  wonder  what  untold  woes  are  threatening  our 
unhappy  country.  One  of  these  thoroughly  indignant 
writers  has  startled  us  by  proclaiming  that  "there  is 
more  political  and  theological  bias  and  less  intellectual 
freedom  in  the  United  States  than  in  any  other  civilized 
country,  except  Russia — and  Russia  is  only  half  civil- 
ized." What  a  reproach  to  "the  land  of  the  free  and 
the  home  of  the  brave"!  And  what  are  we  all  coming 
to?     Who  can  tell? 

But  if  one  could  only  control  his  nerves  and  collect 
his  thoughts  amid  this  noise,  he  might  be  tempted  to 
ask  a  few  questions.  He  might  ask  whether,  in  order 
to  exercise  intellectual  freedom,  to  pursue  independent 
research,  or  to  prosecute  impartial  investigation,  it  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  be  a  president  or  a  professor  in 
a  particular  institution  of  learning  that  does  not  want 
him,  or  to  occupy  a  pulpit  in  a  church  wdiich  desires  to 
get  rid  of  him.  If  I  am  not  mistaken,  a  goodly  number 
of  the  men  who  have  made  original  research,  and  who 
have  blessed  the  world  by  their  investigations,  have  done 
30  without  being  presidents  or  professors,  and  that  free- 
thinkers in  respect  to  religion  have  not  always  occupied 


220  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

pulpits  in  orthodox  churches.  If  a  man  agrees  with 
Ingersoll  or  with  WeUhausen,  wiiy  can  he  not  enjoy  as 
much  inteUectual  freedom  on  the  freethinker's  platform 
as  he  can  in  a  pulpit  or  in  a  professorship  endowed  for 
the  promotion  of  religion? 

Again,  one  might  ask  why  this  coveted  intellectual 
freedom  should  be  so  one-sided;  why  it  is  that  some  of 
it  is  not  to  be  shared  by  boards  of  trustees  or  by  the 
churches.  If  liberty  of  thought  and  action  are  to  be  a 
common  heritage,  why  should  not  the  trustees  of  a  col- 
lege or  a  university  be  at  liberty  to  decide  who  shall  be 
their  president,  and  who  shall  occupy  their  professor- 
ships ?  And  why  should  not  a  church  have  the  liberty 
to  choose  the  men  who  shall  reach  in  its  name  the  rank 
and  file  of  its  membership?  Does  the  fact  that  a  man 
has  been  elected  to  a  professorship  in  a  university  de- 
prive the  legal  guardians  of  the  institution  of  all  free- 
dom of  thought  as  to  whether  his  teaching  is  beneficial 
or  injurious  to  the  institution?  Should  he  plunge  into 
the  advocacy  of  some  theory  in  religion  or  politics  for 
whose  advocacy  he  was  not  elected  to  his  chair,  and  by 
this  means  drive  away  patronage  or  divert  expected 
donations,  have  the  responsible  rulers  who  elected  him 
no  right  to  exercise  their  own  judgment  in  removing 
him  and  selecting  another?  And  in  this  country  of  fierce 
political  battles,  and  hot  blood  growing  out  of  these, 
what  right  has  a  professor  in  a  college,  the  patronage 
of  which  is  drawn  from  all  political  parties,  to  become 
an  active  propagandist  for  any  one  of  them?  When  he 
does  so  he  takes  an  unfair  advantage  of  the  position 
which  he  occupies,  and  when  he  incurs  the  natural  con- 
sequences it  is  unmanly  in  him  or  his  friends  to  com- 
plain. But  this  fault  in  a  professor  reaches  its  climax 
Avhen,   having  been   selected  to  give   instruction   in   an 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  221 

institution  established  and  endowed  to  sustain  and  prop- 
agate belief  in  a  certain  religious  system,  he  deliberately 
seeks  to  subvert  that  system,  and  then  whines  about  a 
restriction  of  his  intellectual  freedom  because  he  is  justly 
deposed  from  the  trust  of  which  he  has  proved  himself 
unworthy. 


[Aug.  7.  1897.] 
QUESTIONS. 

At  the  tmie  of  writing  this  I  have  just  concluded  an 
institute  on  Pentateuchal  criticism,  held  at  Albany,  Mo., 
and  attended  by  126  members  from  abroad,  besides  quite 
a  number  of  the  citizens  of  Albany.  Of  these,  fifty-five 
were  preachers,  and  the  rest  elders,  deacons,  teachers. 
etc.  Among  them  were  a  large  number  of  "chief 
women."  One  part  of  my  work  consisted  in  answering 
written  questions  which  were  handed  in  lor  the  purpose 
of  eliciting  fuller  information  on  some  points,  challeng- 
ing others,  and  drawing  me  out  on  some  not  included  in 
the  lectures.  I  have  preserved  these,  and  it  is  my  pur- 
pose to  publish  some  of  them,  with  the  answers,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  much  larger  audience  addressed  through 
these  columns.     I  present  a  few  below. 

"Does  it  make  any  difference  whether  ^Moses  did  or 
did  not  write  the  Pentateuch?" 

Yes;  it  makes  at  least  this  dift'erence  :  that  if  he  did, 
the  account  which  the  book  gives  of  itself  is  true  :  and  if 
he  did  not,  it  is  false. 

"Would  there  be  any  loss  to  the  Christian  religion 
should  it  be  proved  that  ]\Ioses  was  not  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch?" 

Yes ;  there  would  first  be  this  loss :  that  we  should 
have  to  concede  that  Jesus  and  his  apostles  were  mis- 


222  SHORT  ESSAYS  IN 

taken  in  claiming  that  Moses  was  its  author.  This 
would  lessen  our  confidence  in  them  as  teachers.  Sec- 
ond, the  alternative  being  that  its  real  authors  were  men 
who  lived  from  six  hundred  to  one  thousand  years  after 
Moses,  who  therefore  had  no  correct  information,  but 
wrote  legends  and  folklore  for  history,  and  falsely 
ascribed  to  Moses  the  enactment  of  many  laws  recently 
enacted,  the  loss  to  the  Christian  religion  would  be  that 
all  of  the  teaching  by  Jesus  and  the  apostles  based  on 
the  Pentateuch  would  be  based  on  false  premises. 

"The  destructive  critics  say  that  Moses  could  not 
have  written  the  Pentateuch,  because  writing  had  not 
been  invented  at  the  time  of  Moses.     Please  explain." 

These  critics  once  said  that  the  art  of  writing  was 
not  sufficiently  developed  in  the  time  of  Moses  for  his- 
torical compositions  like  the  narratives  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, but  they  say  that  no  more  ;  for  the  disinterment 
within  the  last  three  years  of  inscribed  tablets  in  various 
localities,  which  date  back  to  the  time  of  Abraham,  has 
demonstrated  the  falsity  of  this  assumption. 

*Tf  a  later  hand  had  written  the  Pentateuch,  would 
he  not  naturally  say  of  any  particular  speech  or  law, 
'These  are  the  words  that  the  Lord  spoke  unto  Moses'? 
Does  not  this  mode  of  speech  suggest  a  later  writer, 
rather  than  Moses  himself?" 

The  point  in  this  question  turns  upon  the  use  of  the 
name  Moses  in  the  third  person  ;  but  it  was  the  custom 
of  ancient  writers,  both  Hebrews  and  others,  to  speak 
of  themselves,  in  historical  compositions,  in  the  third 
person.  All  of  you  who  have  read  C?esar  in  college 
will  remember  him  as  a  conspicuous  example.  While  it 
is  true,  then,  that  a  later  writer  would  speak  of  Moses 
in  this  way,  it  is  equally  true  that  he  would  speak  of 
himself  in  this  way,  and  the  circumstance  has,  therefore. 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  223 

no  bearing-  on  the  ciuestion  of  authorship,  one  \va}-  or 
the  other. 

"Who  was  the  author  of  Deut.  34:  5,  6?  When  was 
it  written,  where,  and  by  what  authority?" 

I  can  not  answer  these  questions  with  precision, 
except  that  neither  these  two  verses  nor  any  part  of  the 
chapter  was  written  by  Moses.  This  chapter  is  a  sup- 
plement to  Deuteronomy,  giving  an  account  of  the  death 
and  burial  of  Closes,  of  the  thirty  days'  mournini^  for 
him,  of  Joshua  becoming  his  successor,  and  closing  with 
a  comparison  between  him  and  later  prophets.  Tf  it  was 
all  written  by  one  person,  it  must  have  been  written 
after  some  later  prophets  arose  with  whom  ]\Ioses  could 
be  compared  ;  but  the  diiTerent  statements  in  it  may  have 
been  appended  to  the  book  at  various  intervals.  By 
whose  authority  they  were  appended  we  are  not  in- 
formed;  if  done  by  inspired  men,  it  was  by  the  authority 
of  God:  if  by  uninspired  men,  it  was  by  their  own 
authority. 

"Does  the  Hebrew  word  in  the  plural  number  trans- 
lated God  in  Genesis  i,  prove  that  the  author  v.-as  a 
polytheist?" 

Xo.  In  the  Hebrew  tongue  words  often  have  the 
plural  form  without  the  idea  of  plurality.  The  language 
was  not  exact  in  this  particular,  like  modern  languages. 
The  English  reader  can  see  this  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis;  for,  although  God  (EIoJiiDi)  says  in  one  verse, 
"Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,"  in  another  he  says,  '7 
have  given  you  every  herb  bearing  seed,"  etc. :  thus 
using  at  one  time  the  plural  pronoun  and  at  another  the 
singular.  The  latter  could  not  have  been  used  had  the 
Elohini  meant  a  plurality  of  gods. 

"Does  Ps.  97:7  indicate  that  the  author  believed  in 
a  plurality  of  gods?" 


224  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

The  author  says,  "Ashamed  be  all  they  that  serve 
graven  images,  that  boast  themselves  of  idols;  worship 
him,  all  ye  gods."  He  is  speaking,  I  think,  to  the  graven 
images  and  idols,  and,  taking  them  as  their  worshipers 
took  them,  calls  upon  them,  in  a  poetic  vein,  to  do  hom- 
age to  Jehovah.  Rocks,  mountains  and  hills  are  else- 
where called  upon  to  do  the  same  thing.  The  passage 
no  more  proves  the  author  a  polytheist  than  Paul  is 
proved  one  when  he  says,  "There  are  lords  many  and 
gods  many"   (i   Cor.  8:5). 

"Do  Jewish  rabbis,  as  Gotheil,  of  New  York,  main- 
tain the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch?" 

I  am  not  acquainted  with  Mr.  Gotheil ;  but  there  are 
many  Jewish  rabbis  who  have  accepted  the  destructive 
criticism  of  the  Old  Testament.  American  Jews  are 
divided  into  two  classes,  the  orthodox  and  the  rational- 
istic. The  former  still  cling  to  the  old  Jewish  faith ;  the 
latter  have  departed  from  it. 

"Is  it  not  an  insult  to  the  Hebrew  peoj^le  to  affirm 
that  this  people  does  not  know  the  authorship  of  its 
greatest  historical  books?" 

I  can  not  say  that  this  is  an  insult  to  the  present 
generation  of  Hebrews,  for  they  have  no  better  means 
of  information  on  such  subjects  than  Christians  have; 
but  such  an  assertion  does  reflect  seriously  upon  the 
generations  of  Hebrews  in  which  the  critics  fix  the 
origin  of  the  documents  of  the  Pentateuch.  For  exam- 
ple, if  Deuteronomy  was  first  known  to  them  in  the 
reign  of  Josiah,  and  was  then  newly  written,  they  were 
a  set  of  consummate  blockheads  to  believe  that  their 
early  ancestors  had  received  it  from  ]\Ioses. 

"Is  there  any  evidence  from  classical  writers  of  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch?  If  so,  what  is 
the  value  of  it?" 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  225 

The  classic  writers  of  Greece  and  Rome  lived  too 
late  to  be  witnesses  on  this  question,  and  the  most  of 
them  knew  nothing  at  all  about  the  Pentateuch.  True, 
Longinus,  whose  Greek  treaties  on  "The  Sublime"  was 
a  text-book  in  my  college  days,  quotes  as  a  remarkable 
specimen  of  sublimity  of  style  the  words,  "Light  let  be; 
and  light  was ;"  and  he  ascribes  it  to  Moses,  but  he  had 
no  special  means  of  knowing  its  authorship. 

"W^ould  not  the  condition  of  the  writing  and  the 
color  of  the  manuscript  show  whether  the  book  found 
in  the  temple  was  of  recent  origin  or  not?" 

Of  course  they  would,  unless  the  priests  who,  accord- 
ing to  the  theory,  composed  it  had  smoked  or  stained 
the  manuscript  to  make  it  appear  old,  as  some  dealers  in 
manuscripts  now  do.  It  is  not  necessary  to  understand 
that  this  manuscript  was  supposed  to  have  existed  from 
the  time  of  IMoses,  which  would  make  it  seven  or  eight 
centuries  old :  but  it  could  not  have  appeared  to  be  a 
recent  copy,  or  a  demand  would  have  been  made  for  the 
original.  Alen  of  sense  would  not  have  trusted  a  freshly 
written  document  without  knowing  from  what  it  was 
copied,  if  copied  at  all. 

"Does  not  the  repetition  of  thought  in  the  first  and 
second  chapters  of  Genesis  prove  that  they  were  written 
by  different  authors?" 

The  critical  argument  for  two  authors  is  based,  not 
on  repetition  of  thought,  but  on  alleged  contradictions. 
It  is  claimed  that  while  the  order  of  creation  in  the  first 
chapter  is,  first,  vegetation  :  second,  the  lower  animals, 
and,  third,  nian,  in  the  second  chapter  it  is,  first,  man  ; 
second,  vegetation  ;  third,  the  lower  animals,  and,  fourth, 
woman.  If  you  first  assume  that  the  second  chapter  is 
a  separate  and  independent  attempt  to  describe  the  order 
of  creation,  these  contradictions  show  themselves  ;  but  if 


226  SHORT   ESSAYS  IN 

you  take  the  two  chapters  as  a  continuous  account,  by 
one  writer,  the  second  chapter  necessarily  takes  the  posi- 
tion of  a  supplement  furnishing  details  omitted  in  the 
first,  and  all  appearance  of  contradiction  vanishes. 

"Will  not  the  theory  of  the  critics  iiave  a  tendency 
to  lessen  the  authority  of  the  Bible?" 

The  real  authors  of  the  critical  theory  deny  that  the 
Bible  has  authority;  consequently  a  full  acceptance  of 
the  theory  carries  with  it  a  complete  rejection  of  author- 
ity as  attached  to  the  Bible,  or  to  any  part  of  it. 

''Is  scientific  demonstration  the  test  by  which  Scrip- 
ture is  to  be  tried?" 

The  Scriptures  are  not  to  be  tested  by  the  science  of 
chemistry,  or  that  of  astronomy,  or  that  of  geology,  or 
that  of  mathematics,  but  they  are  to  be  tested  by  the 
science  of  logic.  Demonstration  is  not  the  right  word. 
Demonstrations  are  addressed  to  the  eye.  But  scientific 
proof — that  is,  logical  proof — is  the  test  by  wliich  the 
Scriptures  are  to  be  tried ;  and  no  man  is  required  to 
believe  them  except  on  such  proof. 

'Ts  not  the  scholarship  of  the  world  on  the  side  of 
advanced  criticism?" 

It  is  common  for  critics  to  claim  that  it  is,  but  when 
they  parade  a  list  of  names,  it  includes  the  names  of 
many  infidels ;  and  these  should  not  be  counted  in  an 
argument  between  Christians,  because  they  stand  equally 
against  Christianity  itself.  Of  believing  scholars,  even 
in  Germany,  a  very  great  majority  are  against  it,  and  the 
majority  is  still  greater  in  Great  Britain  and  America. 

*Ts  not  advanced  criticism  gaining  ground  rapidly?" 

On  the  whole,  it  is  not.  It  is  gaining  in  America,, 
though  not  so  rapidly  as  it  did  five  years  ago ;  it  is 
standing  still  in  Great  Britain,  and  it  is  beginning  to 
lose  ground  in  Germany,  where  it  originated.    In  respect 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  227 

to  the  evidences  by  which  it  is  supported,  it  has  said 
almost  its  last  word,  as  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  its 
new  books  and  essays  are  but  repetitions  or  amplifica- 
tions of  utterances  repeated  often  and  long  ago. 

"Is  reason  the  supreme  guide  in  religion?" 

Xo.  Reason  must  determine  for  us  whether  the  Bible 
is  from  God ;  must  detect  and  correct  all  mistakes  and 
changes  made  by  copyists,  and  must  ascertain  as  best  it 
can  the  meaning  of  all  obscure  passages;  but  here  her 
work  terminates.  These  questions  being  settled,  the 
Bible  itself  is  our  sole  guide  and  authority. 

"Do  the  earliest  Jewish  writers,  whose  writings  have 
come  down  to  us,  regard  ]\Ioses  as  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch?" 

Yes.  The  earliest  of  these  are  the  authors  of  the 
later  books  of  the  Bible.  These,  as  many  as  speak  of 
the  authorship,  ascribe  it  uniformly  to  Aloses.  The  same 
is  true  of  the  apocryphal  writers,  of  Josephus,  of  Philo. 
and  of  the  authors  of  the  Talmud. 

"Why  do  the  critics  who  profess  to  be  Christians 
wish  to  discredit  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch? Would  this  not  weaken  our  faith  in  its  inspira- 
tion ?" 

This  class  ol  critics  do  not  admit  that  they  z^'ish  to 
discredit  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch ;  they 
say  that  they  are  driven  to  their  conclusions  by  conclu- 
sive evidence,  and  that  their  wishes  are  not  to  be  con- 
sulted in  the  matter.  They  charge  those  who  reject 
their  conclusions  w^ith  being  governed  by  their  wishes  in 
the  form  of  traditional  prejudice  which  blinds  them  to 
the  truth.  As  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Pentateuch,  they 
do  not  believe  it  in  the  sense  attached  to  the  word  by 
this  querist.  The  men  to  whom  they  ascribe  the  author- 
ship, J,  E,  D,  H,  P  and  R,  w^ere  moved  by  a  so-called 


228  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

inspiration,  the  same  that  now  moves  godly  men  to  write 
edifying  books  and  essays,  but  by  nothing  more.  The 
acceptance  of  their  theory,  therefore,  does  not  zvcaken, 
but  it  destroys,  faith  in  the  inspiration  which  we  have 
been  taught  to  ascribe  to  prophets  and  apostles.  It  denies 
the  existence  of  such  inspiration. 

'If  in  the  days  of  the  prophets  angels  could  set  aside 
the  law  of  God  with  reference  to  altars  and  offerings, 
as  you  taught  in  your  last  lecture,  why  could  they  not 
do  the  same  in  the  days  of  the  apostles  [see  Gal.  i :  8, 
9]  ;  and  why  not  the  visions,  revelations,  inner  lights, 
etc.,  received  by  men  to-day,  enable  them  to  do  the  same 
thing?" 

The  reason  is  that  the  ritual  of  the  ]\Iosaic  law  was 
not  intended,  like  the  ordinances  and  precepts  of  the 
gospel,  to  be  perpetual.  If  God  intended  to  eventually 
set  aside  all  of  the  Mosaic  ritual,  he  could  very  consist- 
ently suspend  for  an  occasion,  like  that  of  Gideon's  or 
Manoah's  olTering,  or  for  a  period  of  time,  like  that  in 
which  the  ark  was  separated  from  the  tabernacle,  the 
statute  in  reference  to  a  single  altar  and  the  exclusive 
privilege  of  the  priesthood;  and  the  testimony  of  a  visi- 
ble angel  or  that  of  an  inspired  prophet  like  Samuel  was 
sufficient  evidence  of  his  will  in  the  premises;  but  this 
could  not  be  the  case  in  respect  to  the  appointments  of 
Christ,  which  are  to  endure  to  the  end  of  time.  More- 
over, the  fact  that  such  suspensions  had  taken  place 
under  the  law  may  be  the  very  consideration  which  led 
Paul  to  warn  the  disciples  not  to  believe  an  angel  from 
heaven  who  should  proclaim  another  gospel  than  that 
which  they  had  received.  If  the  Jews  had  been  left 
without  this  warning,  they  might  have  adopted  the 
reasoning  suggested  in  this  query ;  and  the  men  and 
women  who  now  see  visions  and  enjoy  inner  light,  might 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  229 

have  some  ground  of  pretense  for  their  folly;  but  all 
this  is  precluded  by  Paul's  words. 

"Drummond  says,  'The  Bible  came  out  01  religion, 
and  not  religion  out  of  the  Bible.'  Please  give  your 
view  of  this." 

Drummond  is  mistaken.  He  fell  into  this  conceit  as 
a  result  of  becoming  an  evolutionist.  If  religion  and 
religious  literature  came  into  being  as  a  result  of  evolu- 
tion from  within  the  soul  of  man,  then  the  Bible  con- 
tains no  direct  revelation  from  God,  and  all  that  it 
claims  for  itself  in  this  respect  is  false.  The  Mosaic 
reliofion,  so  far  as  it  is  2^Iosaic  as  distinct  from  the 
patriarchal,  came  into  being  as  a  result  of  the  revela- 
tions given  through  Closes,  and  written  in  the  Penta- 
teuch. The  religion  of  Jesus,  so  far  as  it  diiters  from 
that  of  the  Old  Testament,  did  not  come  originally  from 
the  written  books  of  the  Xew  Testament,  seeing  that  it 
was,  in  its  main  features,  taught  orally  by  Jesus  and  the 
apostles  before  it  was  committed  to  writing;  but  still 
these  books  did  not  come  "out  of  religion,"  but  out  of 
the  inspired  men  who  wrote  as  they  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  commit  to  writing  that  which  the  same 
Holy  Spirit  had  moved  them  and  their  divine  ^Master  to 
deliver  orally.  It  was,  then,  that  which  was  spoken  or 
written  which  brought  the  Christian  religion  into  being ; 
and  Drummond  has  reversed  the  true  order,  as  evolu- 
tionists are  very  apt  to  do. 

"Did  not  the  idea  of  sacrifice  originate  among  idola- 
ters, and  was  it  not  borrowed  from  them  bv  the  Israel- 


ites 


No ;  for  it  originated,  if  the  Bible  is  true,  before 
idolatry  came  into  existence.  It  is  self -evidently  an 
institution  of  divine  appointment;  for  it  is  impossible 
that  man  could  have  conceived,  by  a  priori  reasoning. 


2.30  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

that  the  true  God  or  any  god  would  be  more  favorable 
to  him  because  he  slew  an  innocent  animal  or  child. 

"How  can  the  critics  have  any  respect  for  the  Pen- 
tateuch, when  it  is  full  of  false  statements  about  its 
origin?" 

The  scholars  who  invented  the  so-called  critical  the- 
ory of  the  Pentateuch  have  no  respect  for  it.  They  do 
not  pretend  to  have  any.  How  the  so-called  ''evangelical 
critics,"  who  accept  the  theory,  can  have  any  respect  for 
it,  is  beyond  my  comprehension ;  yet  it  is  common  for 
them  to  say  that  the  book  is  far  more  precious  to  them 
now  than  it  was  when  they  believed  as  we  do. 

''Can  it  not  be  as  easily  proven  that  the  Gospels  are 
of  composite  origin  as  it  can  be  that  the  Pentateuch  is?" 

Yes ;  and,  according  to  the  critics,  it  is  proved.  Not 
only  the  Gospels,  but  Acts,  some  of  the  Epistles  and  the 
Apocalypse  are  composite.  Professor  Briggs  tells  all 
about  the  gradual  growth  of  the  Apocalypse  in  his  book 
"The  Messiah  of  the  Apostles." 

"Is  it  not  a  little  strange,  the  critical  theory  being 
true,  that  not  one  of  the  documents  from  which  our 
Pentateuch  was  made  has  ever  reached  the  people  of 
this  age?" 

I  think  not ;  for  very  few  books  of  antiquity  have 
been  preserved,  and  if  these  documents  ever  existed  they 
were  very  naturally  neglected  after  the  final  redactor 
had  done  his  work.  But  it  is  strange,  if  this  theory  is 
true,  that  no  historical  trace  of  the  former  existence  of 
these  documents,  or  of  their  authors,  can  be  found  either 
in  the  Bible  or  out  of  it. 

"What  of  the  allegorical  theory  of  the  Garden  of 
Eden?" 

The  next  time  you  meet  a  man  who  holds  that  the 
story  of  the  garden  is  an  allegory,  remind  him  that  all 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  231 

allegories  are  unreal  narratives  which  represent  some- 
thing real — that  all  the  parts  of  the  story  correspond  to 
some  part  in  the  reality.  Then  ask  him  to  tell  you  what, 
in  the  reality,  is  meant  by  the  garden  :  what  by  the  two 
special  trees  ;  what  by  Adam  ;  what  by  Eve :  what  by  the 
**rib  story ;"  what  by  the  serpent ;  what  by  the  temptation 
and  the  sin  :  and  what  by  the  expulsion  from  the  garden. 
If  he  knows  that  it  is  an  allegory,  he  knows  the  explana- 
tion of  it,  or  at  least  some  explanation  of  it;  so  ask  him 
to  explain  it.  Then  I  shall  thank  you  to  report  to  me 
what  his  explanation  is.  If  he  refuses  to  give  the  ex- 
planation, tell  him  he  is  talking  nonsense  when  he  says 
it  is  an  allegory. 

"Was  not  Melchizedek  a  mythical  character?" 

The  critics  answer  that  he  was  ;  but  Professor  Sayce 
has  found  among  the  Tel-el-Amarna  tablets  one  which 
he  claims  to  be  a  letter  from  JNIelchizedek  to  the  king  of 
Egy^pt ;  and  Professor  Hommel,  in  his  book  recently 
noticed  in  these  columns,  has  furnished  strong  confirma- 
tion of  Sayce's  claim.  It  has  at  least  been  made  certain 
by  means  of  recently  discovered  inscriptions  that  the 
leading  features  of  the  episode  in  the  fourteenth  chapter 
of  Genesis  are  real  history. 

'Ts  not  the  Biblical  account  of  the  Hittites  unhis- 
torical?" 

It  was  so  thought  by  unbelievers  for  a  long  time, 
and  believers  had  no  proof  to  the  contrary  except  the 
statements  of  the  Scriptures  ;  but  now  it  is  known  and 
admitted  that  a  powerful  kingdom  under  this  title  did 
exist.  Inscriptions  left  by  Rameses  II.,  who  had  con- 
tinuous war  with  them  during  his  long  reign,  have  fully 
vindicated  the  sacred  record. 

*'A\'ere  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt  two  hundred  and  fif- 
teen or  four  hundred  and  thirty  years?" 


232  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

It  is  plainly  stated  in  Ex.  12:  40  that  they  were  there 
four  hundred  and  thirty  years. 

"Do  you  believe  that  everything  written  in  the  Old 
Testament  is  the  product  of  inspiration?" 

No ;  for  there  are  some  passages  which  are  known 
to  be  interpolations,  and  some  mistakes  of  transcribers. 
It  may  be  also  that  some  of  the  smaller  documents 
received  a  place  among  the  sacred  books  by  mis  judg- 
ment. But  I  believe  that  everything  written  by  the 
original  authors  of  the  several  books  was  written  by 
inspiration  of  God. 

"Have  you  any  faith  in  the  theory  of  the  evolution 
of  man?  In  what  way,  if  any,  does  this  theory  conflict 
with  the  Bible  account  of  man's  origin?" 

I  believe  it  to  be  a  false  theory.  It  conflicts  with  the 
Bible  account  in  that  it  represents  man  as  having  been 
evolved  from  a  brute,  whereas  the  Bible  represents  him 
as  having  been  created  directly  from  inanimate  matter, 
and  as  having  received  his  spirit  directly  from  God.  No 
one  who  believes  the  first  and  second  chapters  of  Gen- 
esis to  be  historical  can  believe  in  the  evolution  of  man. 

"What  do  you  think  of  the  idea  that  the  prophets 
were  not  foretellers,  but  teachers?" 

I  think  that  the  negative  part  of  the  statement  is 
false.  The  prophets  were  unquestionably  teachers,  and 
the  chief  part  of  their  work  consisted  in  rebuking  the 
sins  of  their  contemporaries ;  but  that  they  were  not 
foretellers  is  ialse,  for  they  foretold  many  things  which 
no  human  foresight  could  have  anticipated. 

"What  will  be  the  destiny  of  men  who  spend  their 
lives  in  casting  suspicion  on  the  Bible,  and  undermining 
the  faith  of  the  unsuspecting?" 

I  am  not  their  judge,  and  I  am  glad  that  I  am  free 
from  that  responsibility.     But  I  know  one  who  has  said. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  233 

"It  were  well  for  him  if  a  millstone  were  hanged  about 
his  neck  and  he  were  thrown  into  the  sea,  rather  than 
that  he  should  cause  one  of  these  little  ones  to  stumble." 


LAug.  28,  1897.] 
PRESIDENT    HARPER'S    COMPLAINT. 

In  his  leading  editorial,  published  in  the  Biblical 
IVorld  for  August,  President  Harper  enters  a  complaint 
against  the  editors  in  general  of  religious  papers.  Tie 
puts  his  complaint  in  the  modest  form  of  questions.  He 
asks,  first  of  all,  'Ts  it  not  true  that  a  great  deal  of  space 
has  been  occupied  by  the  editors  of  our  religious  papers 
in  statements  intended  to  turn  opinion  against  those  who 
are  called  'higher  critics'?"  He  answers  his  own  ques- 
tion by  adding:  "The  attitude  of  many  has  been  polemic 
in  the  extreme.  One  wonders,  sometimes,  whether  it 
has  been  altogether  Christian-like." 

The  President  ought  to  remember  that,  on  such  ques- 
tions as  those  made  prominent  by  the  "higher  critics,"  a 
man's  personality  and  his  teaching  are  so  identified  that 
it  is  next  to  an  impossibility  to  keep  them  separate  in 
thought.  AMien  the  religious  papers  feel  called  upon  to 
combat,  with  all  their  might,  opinions  whicn  they  regard 
as  subversive  of  the  Christian  faith,  it  is  not  very  easy 
to  so  aim  their  blows  at  the  false  teaching  as  not  to 
strike  the  false  teacher.  Indeed,  if  a  man  comes  for- 
ward with  teaching  which  he  knows  beforehand  to  be 
very  offensive  to  his  neighbors,  it  does  not  appear  very 
manly  to  complain  when  the  latter  are  offended  at  him 
as  well  as  at  his  teaching.  A  brave  man  is  willing  to 
bear  all  the  personal  consequences  of  any  opinions  which 
he  may  be  constrained  to  propagate.  If  he  dares  not  do 
this,  he  had  better  hold  his  peace. 


234  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

The  President  feels  his  way  a  Uttle  further  by  a 
second  question :  ''Has  it  ever  occurred  to  those  who 
have  written  these  polemic  statements,  and  to  those  who 
have  read  them,  that  perhaps  the  great  duty  of  the 
church  is  to  train  higher  critics  rather  than  to  fight 
them?"  As  one  who  has  done  some  of  this  polemic 
writing,  I  answer  for  myself.  Of  course  not.  How 
could  we  be  making  "polemic  statements"  against  a  cer- 
tain class  of  critics,  and  at  the  same  time  think  that 
perhaps  the  church  ought  to  be  training  some  more  of 
the  same  kind?  We  don't  hatch  rattlesnakes  to  have  the 
fun  of  killing  them. 

But  I  observe  that  in  this  second  question  the  quota- 
tion marks  are  omitted  from  the  phrase  higher  critics  ; 
and  if  by  this  omission  the  President  intends  the  phrase 
to  mean  higher  critics  in  the  better  sense  of  the  term, 
his  question  must  be  answered  in  the  affirmative ;  for 
critics  who  devote  their  powers  and  the  methods  of  the 
science  to  the  defense  and  confirmation  of  the  Bible  are 
in  great  demand  on  the  part  of  the  very  editors  who 
write  polemics  against  "the  higher  critics."  Here  we 
encounter  the  ambiguity  still  attaching  to  this  phrase  in 
the  popular  mind.  The  President  realizes  the  confusion 
growing  out  of  it,  and  proposes  a  possible  method  of 
correcting  it:  "H,  for  all  time,  we  could  drop  the  phrase 
'higher  criticism,'  and  substitute  the  phrase  'literary 
study,'  it  is  probable  that  there  would  not  be  any  serious 
difference  of  opinion  on  this  question.  And  yet  it  is 
true  that  higher  criticism  is  only  'literary  study'." 

Has  not  the  President  here,  in  his  eagerness  to  be 
conciliatory,  forgotten  to  be  candid?  Can  he  possibly 
mean  that  the  expression,  "literary  study,"  includes  all 
of  higher  criticism?  What  has  he  done  with  historical 
criticism,  the  very  branch  of  higher  criticism  in  the  pur- 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  235 

suit  of  which  he  has  himself  given  the  greatest  offense 
to  his  generation?  Has  he  forgotten  his  essays  on  the 
early  chapters  of  Genesis,  in  which  he  proved  to  his  own 
satisfaction  that  these  "stories,"  as  he  called  them,  are 
all  unhistorical  ?  And  if  his  extreme  desire  to  minimize 
our  objections  to  the  kind  of  criticism  in  which  he 
indulges  has  led  him  thus  to  merge  it  all  into  the  literary 
branch  of  the  system,  why  does  he  go  still  further,  and 
make  a  change  in  the  established  phraseology  from  ''lit- 
erary criticism"  to  "literary  study"?  Is  he  playing  the 
game  of  the  spider  and  the  fly? 

The  gauze  which  he  seeks  to  spread  over  the  criti- 
cism which  religious  editors  are  fighting  is  too  thin. 
These  editors  are  not  to  be  deceived  by  mere  words  and 
titles.  \Mien  the  writings  of  certain  critics  lead  to  the 
discrediting  of  large  portions  of  the  Bible,  and  bring 
those  who  accept  them  to  conclusions  in  conflict  with 
plain  statements  of  Christ  and  the  apostles,  the  editors 
of  religious  papers  that  are  truly  religious  will  not  cease 
their  philippics  because  of  a  new  and  innocent  name 
applied  to  the  poison.  Arsenic  is  arsenic,  even  if  you 
call  it  sugar. 

Having  thus  minimized  higher  criticism,  and  reduced 
it  to  nothing  but  innocent  literary  study,  our  President 
proceeds  to  deprecate  harsh  treatment  of  those  who 
engage  in  it: 

The  literary  study  of  the  Old  Testament  has  had  a  long  and 
honorable  career.  The  students,  or,  to  use  the  other  term,  the 
critics,  have  been  for  the  most  part  good,  pious  and  honest  men. 
Their  only  desire  has  been  to  find  the  truth,  and  to  accept  it 
when  found.  In  the  great  majority  of  cases  these  students  have 
shown  a  kind  spirit  and  a  calm  judgment.  The  men.  as  men, 
do  not  deserve  the  harsh  and  unkind  statements  which  are  often 
made  concerning  them. 

Undoubtedly  this  is  true  of  purely  literary  study,  and 


236  SHORT   ESSAYS  IN 

of  the  literary  students  of  the  Scriptures;  for  in  the 
broad  sense  of  the  terms  here  employed  all  the  good  and 
pious  commentators  and  expository  writers  of  past 
Christian  ages  are  included.  But  what  of  those  critics 
from  whom  President  Harper  has  learned  the  kind  of 
criticism  which  has  arrayed  the  editors  of  religious 
papers  in  this  country  against  him  and  his  university? 
He  can  not  deny  the  fact,  and  he  ought  not  to  disguise 
it,  that  the  system  originated  in  the  brains  of  unbelievers 
and  has  been  bro  :ght  to  maturity  by  men  who  deny 
everything  supernatural  in  both  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  New.  These  men,  however  amiable  any  of  them 
may  be,  are  enemies  of  the  cross  of  Christ,  and  they 
have  worked  out  their  theories  for  the  purpose  of  over- 
throwing the  Christian  faith.  \i  President  Harper  is  in 
possession  of  a  single  argument  in  support  of  his  theory 
respecting  the  early  chapters  of  Genesis  which  did  not 
spring  from  this  source,  or  if  there  is  a  single  element 
of  his  theory  which  he  did  not  learn  directly  or  indirectly 
from  this  class  of  critics,  he  would  do  himself  credit  by 
publishing  it  to  the  world. 


[Sept.  II.   1897.] 

LITERARY    VS.    HISTORICAL    CRITICISM. 

Two  weeks  ago  I  called  attention  to  President  Har- 
per's recent  attempt  to  mollify  opposition  to  the  kind  of 
criticism  which  he  advocates  by  styling  it  a  mere  "lit- 
erary study"  of  the  Bible.  The  misleading  character  of 
that  attempt  will  be  still  more  apparent  if  we  read  the 
following  extract  from  Cave's  ''Inspiration  of  the  Old 
Testament,"  in  which  the  true  relation  of  literary  and 
historical  criticism  is  set  forth,  and  the  latter  is  shown 
to  have  superseded  the  former : 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  237 

The  evidence  mainly  relied  upon  to-day  by  the  advocates  cf 
the  evolution  theory,  "the  received  view  of  European  scholar- 
ship," as  Kuenen  says,  is  of  a  historical  and  not  a  literary  kind. 
Comparatively  little  is  heard  of  divergencies  in  phraseology, 
seeming  anachronisms,  dual  or  triple  or  multiple  repetitions  of 
narrative,  apparent  contradictions,  and  all  the  paraphernalia  of 
literary  criticism.  The  conflict  concerning  authorship  has  been 
transferred  from  the  arena  of  literary  to  that  of  historical  criti- 
cism. In  this  there  is  cause  for  thoughtfulness.  The  decisive 
battleground  has  been  at  length  recognized.  By  the  minutiae  of 
literary  criticism,  the  most  uncertain  of  weapons,  no  sure  issue 
was  likely  to  be  reached.  Wellhausen  was  quite  right  when  he 
said,  pungently  enough,  it  is  true,  and  in  a  different  figure,  that 
in  all  this  byplay  of  literary  criticism  "the  firemen  never  came 
near  the  spot  where  the  conflagration  raged."  And  Wellhausen 
was  also  right  when  he  added  that  "it  is  only  within  the  region 
of  religious  antiquities  and  dominant  religious  ideas  that  the 
controversy  can  be  brought  to  a  definite  issue." — Prolegomena, 
p.   12. 

A  revolution  in  method  has  taken  place.  These 
words,  from  the  "head  professor"  of  the  science,  show 
that  President  Harper  is  either  a  back  number  in  his 
study  of  criticism,  or  that  his  recent  article  was  intended 
for  a  coating  of  whitewash. 


[Oct.  II,  1897.] 

THE    THEOLOGY    OF    HYMXS. 

The  apostle  tells  us  to  teach  and  admonish  one  an- 
other in  psalms,  hymns  and  spiritual  songs ;  and  if  we 
should  examine  current  hymns  right  closely,  we  would 
find  that  we  are  teaching  one  another  some  things  which 
we  ought  not  to  teach,  besides  a  great  deal  of  nonsense. 
A  contributor  to  The  Outlook  is  writing  on  the  stibject 
of  ''The  Theology  in  Hymns,"  and  pointing  out  some 
strange  things  which  are  commonly  overlooked.  He 
says  some  very  good  things  on  the  subject,  vet  he  shows 


238  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

a  wrong  bias  of  his  own  mind  when  he  comes  to  speak 
of  hymns  respecting  the  final  judgment.     He  says: 

Most  of  the  hymns  on  the  judgment-day  (scarcely  a  subject 
to  sing  about)  set  it  forth  as  a  far-off  and  awful  assize,  for 
which  all  those  v/ho  ever  dwelt  on  earth  are  being  treasured  up. 
Where  are  they  meanwhile?  It  is  one  of  the  defects  of  our 
earthly  courts  of  justice  that  prisoners  have  often  to  wait  for 
days  and  weeks  before  they  are  Ijrought  to  trial,  and,  what  is 
worse,  are  treated  as  guilty  before  they  are  proven  so.  But 
what  are  these  times  of  waiting  to  those  involved  in  the  idea  of 
one  great  and  simultaneous  world-wide  assize?  Most  thinking 
men  have  outgrown  this  idea,  and  yet  it  remains  within  the 
covers  of  our  hymnals. 

"Most  thinking  men" — that  is  the  expression.  Be- 
lieving men  are  not  now  to  be  considered  in  comparison, 
with  thinking  men.  Believing  men  still  believe  what  the 
Lord  and  his  apostles  say  about  the  judgment-day,  but 
"thinking"  men  have  outgrown  the  idea.  The  "think- 
ing" men  of  this  generation  have  outgrown  a  great 
many  ideas  which  Christ  and  his  inspired  apostles  were 
childish  enough  to  inculcate.  But  what  is  strange  about 
these  thinking  men,  they  think  in  very  crooked  lines 
when  they  come  to  give  reasons  for  their  thinking.  This 
writer  has  outgrown  the  idea  of  a  great  day  of  world- 
wide assize,  because  he  thinks  that  it  involves  the  injus- 
tice of  earthly  courts  by  keeping  in  jail  all  who  have 
lived  on  the  earth,  and  thus  treating  them  as  guilty 
before  they  are  proved  so.  It  is  a  pity  that  he  did  not 
think  a  little  about  what  Jesus  says  on  the  subject  before 
he  began  to  grow  so  fast.  If  he  had,  he  would  have 
known  that  during  the  long  waiting-time  no  man  is 
treated  as  guilty  before  he  is  proved  so,  as  in  earthly 
prisons ;  but  that  the  guilty  are  kept  where  guilty  men 
ought  to  be  kept,  in  a  very  disagreeable  place ;  while 
innocent  men  are  kept  in  quarters  so  comfortable  that 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  239 

they  never  grow  impatient.  Iliey  look  forward  with 
joy  to  the  coming  day,  but  they  are  growing  happier 
every  day  while  they  wait.  If  thinking  men  would  learn 
to  think  according  to  the  facts  in  the  case,  they  would 
never  outgrow  the  ideas  of  the  Son  of  God.  And  if 
they  would  become  believing  men,  their  thinking  would 
not  be  so  likely  to  inflate  them. 


[Oct.  9,  1897.] 
A    BATCH    OF    QUESTIONS. 

E.  W.  A'acher,  of  Beeville,  Tex.,  sent  me  some  weeks 
ago  a  list  of  nineteen  questions,  which  would  require, 
for  full  and  satisfactory  answers,  a  whole  volume,  and 
I  have  been  puzzled  to  know  what  to  do  with  them.  I 
have  at  last  decided  to  answer  them  in  these  columns  by 
taking  a  few  at  a  time  and  giving  to  every  one  as  brief 
an  answer  as  I  can.  I  do  so  under  the  impression  that 
many  others  as  well  as  he  may  be  struggling  with  some 
or  all  of  the  same  questions. 

I.  Xame  the  oldest  Greek  manuscript  texts  of  our 
Bible  now  extant. 

There  are  two  of  which  it  is  a  little  uncertain  which 
is  the  oldest  of  all.  One  is  called  the  Sinaitic,  because  it 
was  found  in  1859  in  the  convent  at  the  foot  of  Blount 
Sinai.  This  convent  was  founded  in  the  sixth  century 
of  our  era,  and  it  has  been  occupied  ever  since  by  a 
succession  of  Greek  monks,  all  of  whose  bones,  it  is 
claimed,  are  preserved  and  piled  up  in  the  cellar  of  the 
ancient  building.  When  printed  books  came  into  use  they 
no  longer  used  their  manuscript  books,  but  they  still  kept 
the  most  of  them  on  the  shelves  of  their  old  library,  and 
among  these  they  had  this  Greek  Bible,  though  the  pres- 
ent generation  of  them  knew  not  the  fact  till  Constantine 


240  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Tischendorf,  who  was  engaged  in  searching  for  such 
documents,  found  it.  He  was  at  the  time  making  his 
researches  at  the  expense  of  the  Czar  Alexander,  and 
consequently,  when  he  obtained  possession  of  the  book, 
he  took  it  to  St.  Petersburg,  and  it  is  now  preserved 
there  in  the  imperial  library.  Three  hundred  facsimile 
copies  were  made  by  the  order  of  the  Czar,  and  dis- 
tributed as  presents  to  leading  libraries  in  Europe  and 
America.  Five  of  these  are  in  this  country,  one  in  the 
National  Library  at  Washington. 

The  other  is  commonly  called  the  Vatican  manu- 
script, because  it  is  kept  in  the  library  of  the  Pope  in 
the  Vatican  palace  at  Rome.  It  has  been  in  that  library 
more  than  four  hundred  years,  but  where  it  had  been 
kept  previously  is  now  unknown. 

Both  of  these  were  originally  complete  copies  of  the 
Greek  Bible,  containing  for  the  Old  Testament  part  the 
Septuagint  translation  made  before  the  birth  of  Christ; 
but  the  Sinaitic  has  lost  some  leaves  of  Genesis  and 
some  of  the  Book  of  Psalms.  It  contains  the  whole  of 
the  New  Testament.  The  Vatican  has  also  lost  some 
leaves,  especially  all  from  the  ninth  chapter  of  Hebrews 
to  the  end  of  Revelation. 

By  applying  to  these  documents  all  the  tests  by  which 
the  age  of  an  ancient  manuscript  is  determined,  it  has 
been  decided,  with  the  consent  of  both  believers  and 
unbelievers,  that  they  were  written  about  the  middle  of 
the  fourth  century,  or  about  A.  D.  350. 

There  are  two  other  MSS.  of  the  Greek  Bible,  only 
about  half  a  century  younger  than  these  two.  One  is 
called  the  Alexandrian,  because  its  history  is  traced  back 
to  Alexandria  in  Egypt,  and  it  is  preserved  in  the  library 
of  the  British  Museum  in  London,  where  it  was  depos- 
ited by  Charles  I.  about  two  hundred  and  forty  years 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  241 

ago.      The   other    is    kept    in    the    National    Library   o£ 
France  in  Paris,  and  is  called  the  Codex  Ephraem. 

2.  "Xote  any  differences  in  them  from  our  present 
Bible." 

There  are  many  differences  between  them  nidivid- 
iially,  and  between  each  of  them  and  our  present  Greek 
Bible.  These  differences  consist  in  the  spelling  of  Greek 
words  chiefly,  in  the  position  of  words  in  the  sentence, 
in  the  omission  or  addition  of  small  words  not  aft'ecting 
the  sense,  and  in  various  other  minutiae  of  Greek  gram- 
mar. A  few  of  them  affect  the  sense  of  particular  pas- 
sages, but  not  seriously.  All  that  aft"ect  it  in  the  least 
are  indicated  on  the  margin  of  the  Revised  English 
Testament.  If  Bro.  \'acher  has  not  a  copy  of  the 
Revised  \'ersion,  or,  if  he  has,  and  has  failed  to  study 
its  preface  and  its  marginal  readings,  he  has  lost  a  great 
deal  in  the  last  sixteen  years.  Xo  man  can  afford  to  be 
without  it,  or  can  aft'ord  any  longer  to  depend  on  the 
old  English  version. 

In  answering  these  two  questions  I  have  answered 
the  first  five  ;  for  the  other  three  are  involved  in  these. 

6.  "When  do  we  first  hear  of  a  canonical  list  of 
Scriptures?" 

The  earliest  council  which  we  know  to  have  taken 
action  on  the  subject  was  that  of  Carthage,  which  con- 
sisted of  the  bishops  in  the  Roman  province  of  Africa, 
and  which  met  A.  D.  397.  It  adopted  a  rule  against  the 
reading  in  the  churches  of  any  but  canonical  books,  and 
in  order  that  all  might  know  what  books  were  canonical, 
it  gave  a  li-t  of  them.  This  act  did  not  make  any  of 
them  canonical,  but  it  simply  gave  for  information,  as 
the  Westminster  Confession  does,  and  the  Methodist 
Discipline,  a  list  of  those  already  known  to  be  canonical. 
Before  this  we  find  in  the  extant  writings  of  earlv  Chris- 


242  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

tian  writers,  such  as  Eusebius,  Athanasias,  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  Origen  and  Clement,  reaching  back  to  the 
beginning  of  the  third  century,  lists  of  books  which  were 
acknowledged  by  Christians  in  general  as  apostolic. 
Then,  back  of  these  we  have  translations  made  in  the 
second  century  containing  all  the  books,  and  also  quota- 
tions from  them  by  writers  of  that  early  period.  These, 
together  with  the  internal  evidences  of  the  books  them- 
selves, settle  the  question  in  the  minds  of  all  but  skep- 
tical scholars,  and  the  most  candid  of  even  these  are 
just  now  beginning  to  acknowledge  more  of  them  as 
genuine  than  did  the  skeptics  of  thirty  years  ago.  So 
much  for  the  New  Testament.  The  earliest  proof  of 
the  existence  and  acceptance  of  the  Old  Testament  as  a 
whole,  is  its  translation  into  Greek,  which  was  begun 
about  two  hundred  and  eighty  years  before  Christ,  and 
completed  within  the  next  hundred  years.  Later  there 
were  three  other  translations  into  Greek,  two  into  Ara- 
maic, one  into  Latin  and  one  into  Syriac.  All  these 
were  in  use  before  the  close  of  the  second  century  A.  D. 


[Oct.  i6,  1897.] 
THE    UNITARL/\NS. 

The  National  L^nitarian  Conference  held  its  annual 
meeting  at  Saratoga,  beginning  September  21.  Thurs- 
day, as  it  was  the  first  session,  was  opened  with  a  "com- 
munion service,"  these  people  not  having  yet  learned 
that  the  Lord's  Day  is  the  day  for  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  well-known  politician,  Senator  Hoar,  of  Massa- 
chusetts, presided.  In  the  course  of  his  opening  address 
he  scored  his  brethren  for  their  stinginess  by  saying 
that  the  sixteen  Congregational  churches  in  his  own  city 
of    Worcester    contributed    more    for    their    missionary 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  243 

objects  than  do  all  the  Unitarian  churches,  though  the 
latter  number  about  sixteen  hundred.  This  shows  how 
little  the  Unitarians  care  for  their  religion.  If  they 
regarded  it  as  of  much  value,  they  would  give  more 
for  its  propagation. 

"Rev."  }^Iinot  J.  Savage,  who  is  a  radical  unbeliever 
in  everything  miraculous,  is  chairman  of  the  Executive 
Committee  of  this  National  Conference,  and  in  his  report 
as  such,  he  made  a  remark  which  ought  to  arrest  the 
attention  of  many  besides  the  Unitarians.  He  said: 
"The  greatest  hindrance  to  the  increase  of  Unitarian 
churches  is  the  spread  of  the  Unitarian  doctrines  in  other 
churches."  W^hile  rejoicing  in  the  spread  of  these  doc- 
trines, he  protested  against  the  dishonesty  of  those  who 
are  Unitarians  in  fact,  but  "remain  in  churches  whose 
doctrines  they  repudiate."  If  I  had  been  there  to  hear 
him,  I  would  have  said:  ''Lay  on,  Mr.  Savage:  you  can 
not  give  them  a  lick  amiss."  And  I  think  I  would  have 
invited  him  to  come  over  our  way  with  his  whip  of  small 
cords,  to  drive  certain  traders  out  of  our  corner  of  the 
temple.  But  the  trouble  about  these  traders  in  the 
temple  is,  that  though  you  may  drive  them  out,  as  our 
Lord  did,  they  will  come  back  again  as  they  did  in  his 
case,  so  long  as  they  can  make  money  by  it.  "Rev." 
Savage  will  have  to  teach  his  L^nitarian  churches  to  give 
their  money  more  liberally  before  this  class  will  come 
over  and  stay.  He  should  at  least  request  Bro.  Hoar  not 
to  make  so  public  the  stinginess  of  Unitarian  churches  : 
for,  if  that  becomes  known,  all  the  Unitarians  who  are 
skulking  in  other  churches  and  living  on  the  fat  of  the 
land,  will  stay  where  they  are  while  they  are  permitted 
to  do  so. 

Several  other  curious  things  cropped  out  in  the  pro- 
ceedings of  this  conference.     For  instance,  according  to 


244  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

the  reporter  in  the  Independent,  some  of  the  speakers 
united  in  defining  the  elements  of  rehgion,  and  they 
formulated  them  on  this  fashion :  "The  constituent  ele- 
ments of  religion  are:  first,  reverence;  second,  conviction 
of  the  moral  order  of  the  world  for  the  direction  of  life ; 
third,  the  moral  energy  of  the  world  for  the  inspiration 
of  life."  If  any  reader,  on  seeing  this,  is  surprised  that 
neither  faith  in  Christ  nor  repentance  toward  God  is 
recognized  as  an  element  of  religion,  he  should  be  re- 
minded that  the  reference  is  to  Unitarian  religion,  and 
of  this  the  Unitarians  ought  to  be  the  best  judges. 

Another  curious  thing  that  turned  up  was  the  state- 
ment of  one  of  the  speakers,  Dr.  John  W.  Chadwick, 
that  "the  argument 'for  the  divinity  of  Christ  involves 
an  atheistic  element ;  it  eliminates  God  from  history  in 
order  to  justify  the  supernatural  claims  that  are  made 
for  Jesus."  AVhy  did  not  some  of  us  think  of  this 
before?  Why  have  we  not  observed  that  to  think  of 
God  as  sending  his  only  begotten  Son  into  the  world, 
eliminates  God  from  history?  That  to  believe  in  Jesus 
as  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  and  as  the  Messiah  for 
whose  coming  God  overruled  all  the  preceding  ages,  is 
to  eliminate  God  from  history?  I  doubt  whether  we 
ever  would  have  discovered  this  if  Dr.  John  W.  Chad- 
wick  had  not  pointed  it  out  to  us. 

Another  speaker,  "Rev."  Charles  F.  Dole,  told  the 
conference  a  thing  which  I  have  believed  for  several 
years,  but  which  I  have  scarcely  ventured  to  tell  lest  I 
should  give  offense.  In  a  paper  on  the  points  of  con- 
tact and  difference  between  the  "new  orthodoxy"  and 
Unitarianism,  he  declared  that  "the  new  orthodoxy  is 
substantially  the  same  system  of  religious  philosophy  as 
the  Unitarians  hold.  It  has  eliminated  the  devil,  the 
fall  of  man,   and   similar   features,    from   the   mediaeval 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  245 

scheme  ;  but  it  differs  from  Unitarianism  in  holding  to 
the  old  idea  of  the  Bible  and  of  the  unique  and  ex- 
ceptional life  of  Jesus."  I  could  say  to  Dr.  Dole, 
Don't  be  uneasy.  Doctor ;  these  adherents  of  the  new 
orthodoxy  who  have  eliminated  the  devil  and  the 
fall  of  man,  are  not  holding  a  very  tight  grip  on  the 
old  idea  of  the  Bible  and  of  Christ.  If  you  knew  them 
as  well  as  I  do,  you  would  see  that  their  grip  on  the 
Bible  and  on  Christ  is  beginning  to  relax,  and  you  will 
soon  find  them  over  on  your  side  if  you  will  only  stir 
up  your  Unitarian  churches  to  the  giving  of  bigger 
salaries. 

Another  interesting  feature  of  this  conference  was 
the  presence  of  the  great  evangelist,  B.  Fay  ]\Iills — his 
presence  not  as  a  looker-on,  but  as  one  of  the  regular 
speakers.  He  held  in  his  address,  that  "the  whole  system 
of  dogmatism  and  priestcraft,  Protestant  and  Catholic, 
is  doomed  and  must  go ;  and  that  an  inspirational  religion 
must  take  its  place."  Here  is  another  and  a  new  kind 
of  religion — inspirational  religion.  Of  course  the  evan- 
gelist that  was,  knows  what  kind  of  religion  that  is, 
and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  on  some  favorable  occasion 
he  will  tell  us.  When  he  does  so  we  can  put  his  defini- 
tion of  it  in  a  group  with  those  definitions  mentioned  in 
the  first  part  of  this  article,  and  then  we  sliall  know 
better  than  we  now  do  what  religion  is.  But  Mr.  Mills 
also  said,  that  in  order  to  establish  this  inspirational 
religion  we  must  have  three  things,  "d.  great  thought,  a 
great  personality,  and  a  great  occasion."  I  should  think 
so ;  especially  a  great  thought — an  article  which  appears 
to  have  been  missing  in  that  conference.  Air.  ^Nlills  felt 
the  need  of  it,  and  he  insisted  that  they  must  find  it.  He 
finally  discovered  it.  and  he  said :  "The  great  thought 
may  be  thus  outlined:  Absolute   faith  that  justifies  not 


246  SHORT  ESSAYS  IN 

only  the  right,  but,  also,  seeming  evil;  unbounded  hope 
that  sees  health  emerge  from  all  corruption ;  unlimited 
love  that  solves  all  individual  and  political  problems." 
Well,  if  that  is  the  great  thought  which  we  must  have 
in  order  to  establish  inspirational  religion,  I  am  afraid 
that  I  shall  never  be  able  to  help  Air.  Mills  in  establish- 
ing it ;  for  this  thought  is  too  great,  or  too  misty,  or  too 
something,  for  my  small  cranium.  I  heard  Mr.  Mills 
preach  a  few  times  two  or  three  years  ago,  and  I  under- 
stood everything  he  said ;  but  since  he  has  gone  off  after 
"inspirational  religion"  his  great  ideas  are  too  profound 
for  me. 


[May  14,  1898.] 

FREE  THOUGHT   AND   LIBERTY   OF   SPEECH. 

When  a  preacher  or  an  editor  becomes  crooked  in  his 
teaching,  and  others  criticize  him  until  public  opinion 
frowns  upon  him,  he  nearly  always  cries  out  that  he  is 
persecuted  ;  that  the  ecclesiastic  thumb-screws  are  being 
applied  to  him  ;  and  all  the  instruments  of  torture  once 
used  in  the  Spanish  Inquisition  became  familiar  to  him. 
He  cries  out  for  freedom  of  thought  and  liberty  of 
speech;  and  if  the  church  he  has  scandalized  undertakes 
to  put  him  away  for  denying  the  truth,  he  is  at  once 
proclaimed  a  martyr  by  a  whole  host  of  fellows  as 
crooked  as  he. 

Unfortunately  for  these  victims  of  persecution,  their 
views  on  the  subject  of  free  speech  are  very  one-sided. 
They  want  all  possible  freedom  themselves,  but  they  are 
not  willing  to  grant  it  to  those  on  the  other  side.  They 
desire  to  teach  their  heretical  or  infidel  theories  with  per- 
fect freedom,  but  they  are  not  willing  to  be  held  up  as 
heretics  or  infidels  by  those  who  believe  them  to  be  such. 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  247 

Why  not  have  freedom  of  thought  and  hberty  of  speech 
on  both  sides  ?  Why  should  it  be  regarded  as  a  rightful 
exercise  of  freedom  for  a  man  to  hold  me  up  to  ridicule, 
for  believing-  the  Bible,  but  an  abuse  of  it  for  me  to 
condemn  and  ridicule  his  unbelief?  By  all  means  let  us 
have  free  speech  ;  but  when,  b}-  the  full  exercise  of  it, 
some  fellow  is  floored,  let  him  take  it  as  his  part,  and 
not  begin  the  cowardly  cry  of  persecution.  Jesus  taught 
his  disciples  to  be  content  when  they  were  called  Beelze- 
bub ;  why  should  his  enemies  think  themselves  too  good 
or  too  tender   for  the  same  treatment? 


[Nov.  6,  1897.] 
WHY   PAUL   WEXT   TO   JERUSALEAI. 

I  am  asked  what  I  think  of  this  idea — that  when  it 
was  proposed  to  Paul  in  Antioch  that  he  and  Barnabas 
should  go  up  to  Jerusalem  to  the  older  apostles  about 
the  question  of  circumcising  the  Gentile  converts,  he 
reasoned  with  himself  in  this  way:  Shall  I  go,  or  shall 
I  refuse  to  go?  I  am  not  infallible,  and  it  may  be 
possible  that  I  have  run  or  may  run  in  vain  ;  so  I  will 
go  and  obtain  the  judgment  of  those  who  were  apostles 
before  me. 

This  is  what  I  think  of  it:  I  think  that  the  man  who 
gave  utterance  to  it  is  very  ignorant  of  the  Scriptures 
bearing  on  the  subject.  In  the  first  place,  he  assumes 
what  is  the  opposite  of  the  truth,  that  Paul  did  not 
regard  himself  as  infallible.  On  this  point  Paul  says 
to  the  Corinthians:  "If  any  man  thinketh  himself  to  be  a 
prophet,  or  spiritual,  let  him  take  knowledge  of  the 
things  which  I  write  unto  you,  that  they  are  the  com- 
mandments of  the  Lord"  (i  Cor.  14:  37).  In  the  second 
place,  the  reason  why  Paul  consented  to  go  is  expressly 


248  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

given  by  himself.  He  says:  "I  went  up  by  revelation" 
(Gal.  2:  I,  2).  It  was  a  revelation,  and  therefore  some- 
thing infallible,  and  not  a  conclusion  drawn  from  his 
want  of  infallibility,  which  caused  him  to  go. 

I  am  not  sure,  however,  that  the  author  of  the 
thought  under  discussion,  would  regard  a  revelation  as 
something  infallible.  Perhaps,  like  Christian  Baur,  who 
discusses  this  matter,  he  looks  upon  a  revelation  as  some- 
thing which  came  to  Paul  as  the  result  of  his  own 
deliberation.     Baur  explains  Paul's  movement  thus : 

"It  was  therefore  quite  to  be  expected,  from  the  nature  of 
the  case,  that  after  a  long  interval  the  apostle  should  resolve  on 
a  fresh  journey  to  Jerusalem,  if  only  in  the  interest  of  his 
apostolic  office  among  the  Gentiles.  That  this  resolution  to  go 
to  Jerusalem  v^as  considered  by  him  to  be  inspired  by  an 
apokalupsis,  a  special  divine  command  summoning  him  thither 
(Gal.  2:2),  does  not  in  any  way  set  aside  the  cause  above 
assigned  to  the  journey,  but  rather  shows  that  this  matter  was 
then  occupying  his  mind  in  a  very  vivid  manner  as  a  thing  of 
pressing  moment,  and  the  reason  of  this  must  be  sought  in  the 
position  of  affairs  at  that  time"  (Life  of  Poul,  I.  112). 

With  Baur,  a  revelation  was  nothing  more  than  some- 
thing which  occupied  the  mind  of  the  apostle  in  a  very 
vivid  manner.  It  is  so  with  many  others  who  have 
adopted,  without  knowing  it,  many  of  Baur's  rationalistic 
notions. 


[Nov.  6.  1897.] 

THOSE    THREE    YEARS    IN    ARABIA. 

It  has  become  quite  common,  since  Dean  Farrar  sug- 
gested the  thought,  to  hear  men  speak  of  three  years 
which  Paul  spent  in  Arabia  reflecting  on  his  new  situa- 
tion and  preparing  for  his  work,  as  though  it  were  one 
of  the  fixed  facts  of  sacred  history.     I  heard  it  alluded 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  249 

to  in  this  way  in  an  address  delivered  before  our  great 
Convention  in  Indianapolis.  The  widespread  acceptance 
of  the  idea  is  a  striking  illustration  of  the  way  in  which 
a  startling  thought,  uttered  by  a  popular  author,  is 
caught  up  and  echoed  round  the  world  as  if  it  were 
true  beyond  doubt,  when  it  may  be  a  mere  conceit. 

What  are  the  facts  in  this  case?  Paul,  in  Gal.  i  :  15- 
18,  says:  "But  when  it  was  the  good  pleasure  of  God, 
who  separated  me  even  from  my  mother's  womb,  and 
called  me  by  his  grace  to  reveal  his  Son  in  me,  that  I 
might  preach  him  among  the  Gentiles,  immediately  I 
conferred  net  with  flesh  and  blood,  neither  went  I  to 
Jerusalem  to  tliem  that  were  apostles  before  me ;  but  I 
went  into  Arabia  ;  and,  again,  I  returned  to  Damascus. 
Then,  after  three  years,  I  went  to  Jerusalem  to  visit 
Cephas,  and  tarried  with  him  fifteen  days." 

This  is  the  passage  which  is  relied  on  for  the  thought 
that  Paul  was  in  Arabia  three  years.  But  Paul  makes  no 
such  assertion.  If  three  years  are  counted  from  his 
return  to  Damascus,  which  was  after  his  sojourn  in 
Arabia,  he  says  nothing  at  all  about  the  length  of  that 
sojourn,  but  puts  the  three  years  in  between  that  and 
his  journey  to  Jerusalem.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
three  years  are  counted  from  the  time  of  his  conversion, 
which  is  the  more  probable,  then  his  stay  in  Damascus 
is  included,  and  it  would  be  impossible  to  determine  from 
this  passage  where  he  spent  the  most  of  the  time, 
wdiether  in  Arabia  or  in  Damascus.  But  when  we  turn 
to  the  account  in  Acts,  a  part  of  this  uncertainty  is 
removed.  In  this  account  nothing  is  said  about  the 
journey  into  Arabia ;  but  it  is  said  that  after  his  baptism 
**he  was  certain  days  with  the  disciples  at  Damascus. 
And  straightway  in  the  synagogues  he  proclaimed  Jesus, 
that  he  is  the  Son  of  God"   (9:  19,  20).     These  words 


250  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

show  that  his  journey  into  Arabia  did  not  follow  imme- 
diately upon  his  baptism,  as  we  might  infer  if  we  had 
only  the  account  in  Galatians ;  but  that  he  "straightway" 
preached  in  the  synagogues  of  Damascus.  The  plural 
number  of  the  word  "synagogues"  shows  that  there  was 
a  number  of  these;  and  that  he  preached  in  all  of  them 
implies  a  stay  of  some  considerable  length.  This  fact 
thoroughly  refutes  Farrar's  conceit  that  before  he  en- 
tered at  all  upon  his  ministry  he  went  out  into  the 
Arabian  desert  to  meditate  on  his  new  relation  to  Christ, 
and  on  the  plans  of  his  future  life-work.  The  further 
statement  is  made  in  Acts,  that  "Saul  increased  the  more 
in  strength,  and  confounded  the  Jews  who  dwelt  in 
Damascus,  proving  that  this  is  the  Christ"  (v.  22),  and 
the  account  closes  with  this  statement :  *'And  when  many 
days  were  fulfilled,  the  Jews  took  counsel  together  to 
kill  him ;"  and  this  is  followed  by  the  account  of  his 
escape  through  the  wall  (23-25).  Most  naturally  the 
excursion  in  Arabia  took  place  in  the  interval  between 
his  first  preaching,  in  which  no  violence  was  attempted, 
and  this  last  in  which  the  Jews  took  counsel  to  kill  him, 
and  he  escaped  to  Jerusalem.  But  this  last  preaching 
continued  through  ''many  days,"  which  may  have  been 
a  year  or  more,  and  certainly  the  first  preaching  which 
followed  immediately  after  his  baptism  must  have  occu- 
pied a  considerable  portion  of  the  three  years  mentioned 
in  Galatians.  It  is  entirely  certain,  then,  that  the  excur- 
sion into  Arabia,  instead  of  occupying  three  years,  occu- 
pied but  a  comparatively  small  part  of  that  time.  Let  us 
hear  no  more,  then,  of  Paul  spending  three  years  in 
Arabia. 

But  where  was  Arabia,  and  for  what  purpose  did  Paul 
go  thither?  It  has  been  suggested  that  Arabia  Petrea 
was  meant,  and  that  Paul  went  to  Mount  Sinai,  whither 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  251 

Elijah  fled,  and  where  the  law  of  Moses  was  given.  But 
in  order  to  do  this  he  would  have  had  to  pass  through 
Judea,  and  close  by  Jerusalem.  It  would  have  been  a 
journey  of  about  four  hundred  miles — a  long  distance  to 
go  for  meditation.  These  dreamers  forget  that  at  the  time 
of  which  we  speak  Damascus  itself  was  under  the  domin- 
ion of  the  king  of  Arabia.  Aretas  was  king  of  Arabia 
then,  and  Paul,  in  giving  an  account  of  his  escape  from 
Damascus,  says :  "In  Damascus  the  governor  under  Are- 
tas the  king  guarded  the  city  of  the  Damascenes  in  order 
to  take  me"  (2  Cor.  11:32).  Anywhere  in  the  vicinity 
of  Damascus  was  then  in  Arabia,  and  Paul  went  out  of 
Damascus  into  Arabia  just  as  Jesus,  in  the  style  of  John, 
went  out  of  Jerusalem  into  the  land  of  Judea  (John  3: 
22).  He  doubtless  went  into  some  of  the  villages  in  that 
part  of  Arabia  to  preach  the  gospel  which  he  had  been 
preaching  already  in  the  city.  Paul  was  the  last  man 
who  ever  lived,  to  be  spending  a  year,  or  two,  or  three, 
after  learning  what  his  duty  was,  in  meditating  about 
the  execution  of  it.  The  thought  of  his  doing  so  could 
enter  into  the  mind  of  none  who  had  not  learned  to 
admire  the  useless  monachism  of  a  much  later  age. 


[Nov.  6.  1897.] 
THAT    JERUSALEA.I    DECREE. 

It  were  a  long  story  to  tell  all  the  crudities  of  thought 
which  have  been  connected  with  the  meeting  held  in 
Jerusalem  to  take  action  on  the  question  of  circumcision. 
I  saw  one  of  these  expressed  in  a  religious  newspaper 
not  many  weeks  ago.  In  answer  to  a  querist,  it  was  said 
that  the  decree  issued  by  the  apostles  on  that  occasion 
was  intended  to  be  temporary  "so  far  as  it  was  purely 
ceremonial."     As  there  is  not  a  hint  in  the  text  of  Acts, 


252  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

or  anywhere  in  the  New  Testament,  that  any  part  of  the 
decree  was  temporary,  and  as  the  decree  itself  begins  by 
saying,  "It  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Spirit  and  to  us  to 
lay  upon  you  no  greater  burden  than  these  necessary 
things,"  it  is  hard  to  see  where  the  idea  of  temporariness 
originated.  And  as  to  the  part  that  is  purely  ceremonial, 
I  think  it  is  hard  to  find.  The  things  enjoined  are  these: 
"That  ye  abstain  from  things  sacrificed  to  idols,  and 
from  blood,  and  from  things  strangled,  and  from  for- 
nication ;  from  which  if  ye  keep  yourselves  it  shall  be 
well  with  you."  Which  of  these  is  ceremonial?  Cere- 
monial means  relating  to  ceremony.  But  what  ceremony 
was  there  in  abstaining  from  things  offered  to  idols? 
You  may  as  well  speak  of  the  ceremony  of  abstaining 
from  intoxicating  drinks.  What  was  there  ceremonial  in 
abstaining  from  things  strangled  and  from  blood?  I 
have  abstained  from  both  all  my  life,  and  I  never 
dreamed  that  in  doing  so  I  was  observing  a  ceremony. 
Fornication  had  been  ceremonial,  for  it  was  used  as  a 
ceremony  in  the  worship  of  Venus,  and  that  is  one 
reason  why  it  is  here  prohibited.  Many  of  the  Gentiles, 
having  been  accustomed  to  it  as  a  religious  ceremony, 
were  slow  to  realize  that  it  was  a  hideous  sin  in  the  sight 
of  God,  and  for  this  reason  special  emphasis  had  to  be 
laid  upon  the  prohibition  of  it.  According,  then,  to  the 
answer  which  we  are  considering,  the  prohibition  of 
fornication  was  only  temporary,  while  abstaining  from 
things  strangled  and  from  blood,  not  being  ceremonial  at 
all,  might  be  continued.  This  writer  ought  now  to  rise 
and  tell  us  at  what  time  fornication,  which  was  forbid- 
den only  temporarily,  ceased  to  be  prohibited  by  this 
decree.  The  man  who  originated  this  interpretation  did 
not  look  far  enough  ahead. 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  253 

[Nov.  13.  1897.] 
IX    ONE    SPIRIT. 
I  answer  the  following  question : 

T  read,  years  ago,  your  article  in  Lard's  Quarterly  on  "By 
one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  the  one  body,"  etc.  J.  J. 
Haley  claims  for  it  Holy  Spirit  baptism.  Have  you  changed 
your  view,  or  do  you  believe  now  as  you  did  then  ? — W.  C. 
Rogers. 

I  remember  the  article  referred  to,  but  I  long  ago 
gave  away  the  copy  of  the  Quarterly  which  contained 
it,  and  I  can  not  now  consult  it.  The  article  had  rather 
a  singular  origin.  Bro.  Lard  and  I  agreed  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  passage:  but  he  had  some  misgivings 
about  it,  so  he  made  the  proposal  that  I  should  write  a 
defense  of  our  interpretation  ;  that  he  should  make  under 
an  assumed  name  the  strongest  objections  to  it  that  he 
could,  and  that  I  should  then  make  a  short  rejoinder.  It 
has  been  so  long  since  I  read  my  article  that  I  can  not 
now  recall  all  the  course  of  my  argument,  and  I  am  not 
sure  that  I  did  not  say  some  things  that  I  would  not 
now  repeat ;  but  my  understanding  of  the  apostle's  mean- 
ing has  undergone  no  change,  and  I  will  try  to  set  it 
forth  in  brief. 

As  given  in  the  Revised  Aversion,  the  language  of  the 
text  is  this :  "For  in  one  Spirit  were  we  all  baptized  into 
one  body,  whether  Jews  or  Greeks,  whether  bond  or 
free;  and  were  all  made  to  drink  of  one  Spirit"  (i  Cor. 
12:  13).  Two  facts  in  the  past  experience  of  the  dis- 
ciples are  here  set  forth  ;  first,  that  in  one  Spirit  they 
had  all  been  baptized  into  one  body ;  and,  second,  that 
they  had  all  been  made  to  drink  of  one  Spirit.  I  think 
that  it  will  not  be  denied  that  the  word  'Vlrink."  in  the 
latter  clause,  is  a  metaphor   for  the  enjoyment  of  the 


254  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Holy  Spirit;  and  that  the  reference  is  to  that  gift  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  promised  to  all  who  repent  and  are  baptized. 
This  enjoyment  of  the  Spirit,  which  begins  of  course 
with  its  reception,  is  represented  by  the  apostle  as  being 
preceded  by  the  other  fact  that  all  had  been  in  one 
Spirit  baptized  into  one  body.  In  other  words,  being 
baptized  into  the  one  body  had  preceded  being  made  to 
drink  of  the  one  Spirit.  Can  the  baptism  then  mean  the 
baptism  in  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  I  think  not ;  for  he  who  is 
thus  baptized  begins  in  the  act  to  drink  of  the  Spirit, 
and  this  drinking  would  not  be  spoken  of  as  a  subsequent 
and  separate  experience. 

Again,  in  all  passages  where  the  word  "baptize"  is 
connected  with  that  in  or  into  which  the  act  brings  the 
subject,  the  verb  is  placed  first.  For  example,  'T  baptize 
you  in  water;"  "He  shall  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  fire ;"  "All  who  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were 
baptized  into  his  death."  Even  in  our  passage,  "baptized 
into  one  body."  Now,  if  the  apostle  had  meant  to  say 
that  this  baptism  into  one  body  was  the  Holy  Spirit  bap- 
tism, he  would  have  expressed  himself,  according  to  the 
universal  usage,  differently.  He  would  have  said,  "We 
were  all  baptized  in  one  Spirit  into  one  body."  This 
would  have  been  unambiguous.  But,  connecting  the 
expression  "into  one  body"  with  the  baptism,  he  places 
the  expression  in  "one  spirit,"  not  between  them,  but 
before  both.  What,  then,  does  he  mean  by  this  latter 
expression?    This  is  the  real  issue. 

It  is  well  known  that  Paul,  in  a  few  instances,  uses 
the  expression,  "in  the  Spirit,"  for  the  state  of  one  in 
whom  the  Spirit  dwells  ;  but  it  is  also  used  to  indicate 
the  controlling  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  the  lat- 
ter usage  is  more  frequent  than  the  former.  What  is 
more  to  the  point,  the  latter  usage  is  the  one  which  pre- 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  255 

vails  throug-hoiit  the  context  of  the  passage  under  dis- 
cussion. The  intro(hictory  remark  of  the  context  is  this: 
"Wherefore,  I  give  you  to  understand  that  no  man  speak 
ing  in  the  Spirit  of  God  saith  Jesus  is  anathema  ;  ard  nc 
man  can  say  Jesus  is  Lord,  but  in  the  Holy  Spirit"  (v. 
2).  Now,  a  man  can  say  Jesus  is  Lord  without  being 
in  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  sense  of  having  the  Holy  Spirit 
dwelling  in  him  ;  but  he  can  not  say  it  without  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  his  guide  to  a  knowledge  of  Jesus.  The  Spirit's 
guidance  in  the  matter  is  exercised  through  the  word  of 
truth.  Farther  on  the  apostle  adds :  "For  to  one  is  given 
through  the  Spirit  the  word  of  wisdom  :  and  to  another 
the  word  of  knowledge,  according  to  the  same  Spirit; 
and  to  another  the  gift  of  healing,  in  the  same  Spirit" 
(vs.  8,  9)  ;  where  the  expressions  "through  the  Spirit," 
"according  to  the  same  Spirit,"  and  "in  the  same  Spirit," 
are  equivalents,  and  all  specify  the  action  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  several  instances,  and  not  the  state  of  being 
in  the  Holy  Spirit.  If  there  could  be  any  doubt  of  this, 
it  would  be  removed  by  verse  11,  which  is  a  summary 
of  the  preceding  specifications  of  the  Spirit's  work:  "But 
all  these  worketh  the  one  and  the  same  Spirit,  dividing 
to  each  one  severally  even  as  he  will."  In  such  a  con- 
nection, when  the  apostle  adds,  "in  one  Spirit  were  we 
all  baptized  into  one  body,"  it  appears  incontrovertible 
that  he  's  adding  another  specification  of  what  the  Holy 
Spirit  does — that  by  its  guidance,  which  was  known  to 
be  exercised  through  the  preached  W'ord.  the  disciples 
had  been  baptized  into  the  one  body.  The  baptism  could 
be  understood  by  his  readers  only  as  the  same  by  which 
they  were  baptized  into  Christ,  and  into  his  death  :  that 
is,  the  baptism  in  water. 

I  may  add  that,  in  the  only  two  instances  of  baptism 
in  the  Holy  Spirit  expressly  so  styled  in  the  Scriptures, 


256  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

this  baptism  did  not  introduce  its  subjects  into  the  one 
body.  The  first  was  that  of  the  apostles  on  the  great 
Pentecost,  and  the  second  the  family  and  friends  of  Cor- 
nelius. In  the  former  instance  the  subjects  of  the  bap- 
tism were  already  members  of  the  body,  and  in  the  latter 
they  became  such  afterward  by  being  baptized,  as  Peter 
commanded,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ. 

"What  reason  did  the  early  Christians  give  for  the  substitu- 
tion of  our  four  Gospels  for  those  previously  in  use  in  the 
churches?" 

None  at  all ;  and  for  the  very  good  reason  that  no 
such  substitution  took  place.  The  assumption  that  it  did 
is  a  device  of  the  unbelievers  intended  to  break  the  force 
of  the  evidence  given  by  Justin  Martyr.  They  assume, 
without  the  slightest  ground  of  evidence,  that  the  books 
which  he  calls  memoirs,  though  he  says  that  they  were 
also  called  Gospels,  were  books  now  lost,  and  that  our 
four  were  substituted  for  them.  The  documents  to  which 
Luke  refers  in  the  beginning  of  his  Gospel  were  furtive 
and  unsatisfactory  writings,  whose  want  of  reliability  led 
him  to  write  his  book. 


[Dec.  4.  1897.1 
WAS    THE    QUESTION    BEFORE    HIM? 

In  answer  to  the  evidence  of  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  the  Pentateuch  based  on  the  statements  of  Jesus,  it  is 
constantly  affirmed  by  the  "critics"  that  the  question  of 
authorship  was  never  brought  before  Jesus. 

In  the  sense  of  being  propounded  formally,  as  the 
question,  "What  is  the  great  commandment?"  it  was  not. 
Neither  did  he  ever  formally  bring  it  before  himself  as 
a  question  to  be  discussed  pro  and  con.  How,  then, 
demands  the  "critic,"  can  he  be  said  to  have  settled  the 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  257 

question?  How  can  a  man  settle  a  question  which  was 
never  propounded  to  him,  and  which  he  never  pro- 
pounded to  himself,  or  to  those  with  whom  he  con- 
versed ? 

I  answer,  that  a  man  may  make  indirect  affirmations 
which  are  as  positive  as  any  uttered  in  direct  proposi- 
tions. For  example,  I  may  say  such  and  such  a  proposi- 
tion affirmed  by  Wellhausen  is  false.  Here  the  question 
of  the  falsity  of  the  proposition  is  the  one  formally 
before  me,  yet  I  indirectly  declare  that  Wellhausen 
affirmed  the  proposition  ;  and  if  he  did  not,  I  have  slan- 
dered him.  I  can  not  defend  myself  against  the  charge 
of  slander  by  saying  that  the  question  whether  Well- 
hausen so  affirmed  was  not  before  me.  I  placed  it  before 
me.  Again,  our  Lord  says :  "Lay  not  up  for  yourselves 
treasure  upon  the  earth,  where  moth  and  rust  do  con- 
sume and  where  thieves  break  through  and  steal."  Here 
the  subject  formally  presented  is  that  of  laying  up  treas- 
ures ;  but  it  is  indirectly  affirmed  that  moth  and  rust  con- 
sume earthly  treasures,  and  that  thieves  break  through 
and  steal  them.  Xow,  if  it  should  be  found  that  moth 
and  rust  never  do  consume  such  treasures,  and  that 
thieves  never  do  steal  them,  we  could  not  defend  the 
Lord  from  a  charge  of  misstatement  by  saying  that  the 
question  about  moths  and  rust  and  thieves  was  not  the 
question  before  him.  In  like  manner,  when  he  says  to 
the  healed  leper.  "Show  thyself  to  the  priest  and  ofifer 
the  gift  that  Moses  commanded,  for  a  testimony  unto 
them."  his  affirmation  that  Moses  so  commanded  is  as 
positive  as  his  command  to  offer  the  gift;  and  if  a  man 
says  that  Moses  did  not  so  command,  he  has  contradicted 
a  positive  statement  of  the  Lord. 

Take  another  example.     Jesus  says :  'The  works  tha 
the  Father  hath  given  me  to  accomplish,  the  very  works 


258  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

that  I  do,  bear  witness  of  me  that  the  Father  hath  sent 
me."  Here  the  main  question  before  him  is  the  evidence 
furnished  by  his  works ;  but  he  no  less  positively  affirms, 
though  indirectly,  that  the  Father  gave  him  those  works 
to  accomplish  ;  and  his  veracity  is  pledged  to  that  fact  as 
well  as  to  the  other.  So,  when  he  says  in  the  same  chap- 
ter, "If  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  believe  me;  for  he 
wrote  of  me.  But  if  ye  believe  not  his  writings,  how 
shall  ye  believe  my  words?"  does  he  affirm  nothing  in 
respect  to  writing  done  by  Aloses  ?  This  is  not  exactly 
a  parallel  case  ;  for  the  assertion  about  Moses  and  his 
writings  is  not  made  indirectly ;  it  is  the  main  thing 
before  Jesus.  His  sole  argument  turns  on  it ;  for  he 
introduces  the  subject  by  saying:  ''Think  not  that  I  will 
accuse  you  to  the  Father;  there  is  one  that  accuseth  you, 
even  Moses  in  whom  ye  put  your  hope.  For  if  ye  believed 
Moses,  ye  would  believe  me ;  for  he  wrote  of  me.  But 
if  ye  believe  not  his  writings,  how  shall  ye  believe  my 
words?"  The  question  whether  Moses  wrote  was  not 
brought  before  him  ;  but  he  took  it  up  himself  as  an 
unquestioned  fact,  affirmed  it  to  be  such,  and  based  his 
argument  upon  it  as  such.  Let  the  "critics"  put  their 
hands  on  their  mouths  in  the  presence  of  such  evidence 
as  this. 


[Jan.  8,   1898.] 

FARRAR'S    DANIEL. 

The  London  correspondent  of  the  Christian-Evan gel- 
ist  has  been  doing  some  vigorous  work  lately  in  exposure 
of  the  conceits  of  the  destructive  critics.  Flis  letters  on 
these  topics  present  quite  a  new  feature  in  that  paper. 
His  last,  in  the  issue  of  December  23,  gives  account  of  a 
great   discourse  delivered  recently  by  Archdeacon   Sin- 


BIBLICAL.  CRITICISM  259 

clair,  in  defense  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  against  the  injvn'i- 
ous  representation  made  in  Farrar's  commentary  on  the 
same.  The  sermon  <vas  dehvered  in  St.  Paul's  Cathedral 
and  was  heard  hy  "an  immense  congregation."  Bro. 
Durban  reports  briefly  the  preaclier's  answers  to  two  of 
Farrar's  criticisms,  the  one  based  on  the  Chaldee  por- 
tions of  the  book,  which  is  really  trivial,  and  the  one 
based  upon  the  use  of  Greek  words.  I  quote  what  he 
says  of  the  latter; 

The  second  great  objection  is  that  which  is  raised  to  the  use 
of  Greek  names  for  certain  musical  instruments,  and  the  Greek 
word  for  a  herald.  This  is  supposed  to  settle  the  theory  that 
the  book  must  have  been  written  long  after  the  period  usually 
assigned.  "But,"  says  Dr.  Sinclair,  "Nebuchadnezzar  early  in 
his  career  fought  in  Lydia,  and  at  that  time  there  were  Greek 
rhapsodists  at  the  courts  of  Midas,  king  of  Phrygia,  and  Gyges, 
king  of  Lydia.  The  names  of  musical  instruments  belonging  to 
so  musical  a  people  as  the  Greeks  would  be  widely  known. 
Very  few  of  our  English  musical  instruments  have  English 
names.  And,  later,  Nebuchadnezzar  was  invading  Egypt,  at  a 
time  when  Greek  mercenaries  had  long  been  scrawling  inscrip- 
tions on  Egyptian  buildings.  The  difficulty  is  purely  imaginary 
and  arises  from  insufficient  inquiry  into  the  interpenetrating 
intercourse  and  admixture  of  those  ancient  civilizations." 

I  suppose  that  the  speaker  went  much  more  into 
details  than  we  might  judge  from  the  brief  report.  It 
is  the  common  history  of  musical  instruments  that,  in 
traveling  from  country  to  country,  they  carry  with  them 
their  original  names.  Here  is  the  violin,  with  its  Italian 
name,  declaring  its  Italian  origin  in  every  country  to 
which  it  has  been  carried.  We  sometimes  call  it  a  fiddle, 
but  that  is  a  vulgarism.  Here,  also,  is  the  pianoforte, 
of  which  the  same  is  true.  It  is  translatable  into  Eng- 
lish, but  how  would  the  translation,  the  soft-land,  suit  as 
the  name  of  the  instrument?  The  name  "guitar"  is 
untranslatable  into  English,  and  we  are  compelled  to  call 


26o  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

it  by  its  Spanish  name.  So,  if  our  only  American  inven- 
tion in  music,  the  banjo,  were  carried,  as  it  will  be,  into 
all  the  countries  of  the  globe,  it  would  everywhere  be 
called  the  banjo,  because  the  word  can  not  be  translated 
into  any  language  under  the  sun.  If,  then,  two  or  three 
Greek  instruments  of  music  were  carried  to  Babylon  in 
or  before  the  days  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  we  may  be  cer- 
tain that  they  carried  with  them  their  Greek  names.  But 
how  could  they  have  been  carried  there?  The  Greeks 
had  constant  intercourse  with  Asia  Minor  and  with 
Egypt  before  the  invasions  of  those  countries  mentioned 
by  Dr.  Sinclair.  Their  musical  instruments  would  nat- 
urally be  one  of  the  first  articles  which  they  would  carry 
to  those  countries  with  them !  When  the  first  one  "was 
seen  and  heard  'in  Lydia  or  in  Egypt,  a  native  would 
demand  of  the  performer,  "What  do  you  call  that  instru- 
ment?" and  the  answer  would  introduce  the  name  in 
Egypt  and  in  Lydia.  Tyrian  sailors  had  long  since  been 
visiting  the  coast  of  Greece,  and  when  one  of  them  with 
a  musical  turn  first  saw  in  the  han^As  of  a  Greek  an 
instrument  he  had  never  seen  before,  he  would  be  cer- 
tain to  buy  it  if  he  could,  and  he  would  buy  it  under  its 
Greek  name  and  carry  it  to  Tyre  with  that  name.  There, 
sooner  or  later,  it  would  fall  into  the  hands  of  some 
Babylonian  musician,  who  would  carry  it  to  Babylon 
with  the  same  name.  In  most  instances  it  would  be 
impossible  to  give  it  another  name,  because  there  would 
be  no  corresponding  w^ord  in  the  new  language  by  which 
to  call  it.  These  considerations  make  it  very  strange  that 
a  man  like  Dean  Farrar,  and  many  others  equally  learned 
and  acute,  should  have  found  in  the  name  of  three  of  the 
instruments  in  Nebuchadnezzar's  band  a  ground  for 
assigning  a  late  date  to  the  Book  of  Daniel. 

The  points  of  argument  mentioned  by  Bro.  Durban 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  261 

are  not  the  strongest  urged  against  the  authenticity  of 
Daniel ;  but  the  answers  to  these  can  be  safely  taken  as 
types  of  the  answers  that  will  be  eventually  given  to  all 
the  rest.  The  book  which  is  to  fully  vindicate  the  Book 
of  Daniel  has  yet  to  be  written.  It  may  be  now  in  the 
hands  of  its  author. 


[Jan.  8,   1898.] 
THE    RE\TE\VERS    OF    HO^niEL. 

Since  my  first  notice  of  Professor  Hommel's  "Ancient 
Hebrew  Tradition,"  published  in  these  columns  last  sum- 
mer, I  have  read  quite  a  number  of  hostile  reviews  of  it 
in  such  periodicals  as  the  Expositor^  the  Expository 
Times  and  the  Critical  Rcviciv.  None  of  these  are  elab- 
orate, and  none  of  them  attempt  to  refute  his  main 
thesis.  They  deal  chiefly  in  pointing  out  extravagant  or 
ill-founded  conceits  in  which  he  indulges,  as  though  the 
exposure  of  these  were  an  answer  to  his  principal  line  of 
argument.  These  notices  are  well  calculated  to  prejudice 
the  book  in  the  estimation  of  those  who  have  not  read  it ; 
but  to  one  who  has  thev  appear  like  the  small  work  of 
picking  at  a  man  whose  arguments  you  can  not  refute. 
The  latest  effort  of  this  kind  which  I  have  seen  is  from 
the  book  reviewer  of  the  Christiau-Erangclist,  and  it 
appeared  in  the  issue  of  that  paper  for  December  23. 
As  his  review  will  go  into  the  hands  of  many  of  my  own 
readers,  I  think  it  well  to  notice  some  of  his  remarks.  I 
do  so,  not  as  a  defender  of  all  that  Hommel's  book  con- 
tains, certainly  not  of  the  few  vagaries  in  which  he 
indulges,  but  of  the  judgment  to  which  I  gave  utterance 
when  the  book  first  appeared. 

This  reviewer,  speaking  of  the  impression  made  by 
the  introductory  part  of  the  book,  says: 


262  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

It  appears  that  the  author  has  set  himself  to  the  task  of 
overthrowing  what  he  calls  the  higher  criticism,  and  one  may 
suppose  that  firm  ground  has  been  at  last  reached  regarding  the 
whole  problem. 

I  am  glad  to  observe  from  this  last  remark  that  the 
writer,  though  evidently  attached  to  the  school  combated 
by  Hommel,  does  not  feel  that  he  is  standing  on  "firm 
ground."  That  he  read  Hommel  with  the  hope  of  find- 
ing "firm  ground,"  is  a  hopeful  symptom  in  his  own  case. 

He  next  remarks : 

With  the  exception  of  certain  philological  material  relative 
to  the  proper  names  to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  his  facts 
have  long  been  in  the  possession  of  every  student. 

What  shall  be  thought  of  this,  when  it  is  remembered 
that  the  aforesaid  "philological  material  relative  to  the 
proper  names  to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament,"  con- 
stitutes the  main  part  of  Hommel's  "material"?  In  the 
very  first  paragraph  of  his  preface  he  says: 

For  years  past  I  have  been  convinced  that  the  question  of 
the  authenticity  of  the  ancient  Hebrew  tradition  could  not  be 
finally  decided  until  the  Hebrew  personal  names  found  in  the 
Old  Testament  had  first  been  exhaustively  compared  with  con- 
temporary names  of  similar  formation,  and  carefully  checked 
by  them. 

This  is  the  task  to  which  the  book  is  devoted  ;  and  to 
say  that  all  the  facts  in  the  book,  with  this  exception, 
have  long  been  in  the  possession  of  every  student,  is  idle 
talk. 

In  regard  to  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  Genesis,  the 
reviewer  disparages  Hommel's  discoveries  by  insisting 
that,  although  the  radical  critics  of  the  Wellhausen 
school  deny  all  historical  value  in  the  earlier  chapters  of 
Genesis,  the  more  conservative  class,  such  as  Driver, 
Smith,  Briggs,  etc.,  maintain  that  "the  Biblical  records 
dealing  with  the  patriarchs  have,  to  say  the  very  least, 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  263 

a  basis  in  fact,  and  that  snch  record  as  Genesis  14  con- 
tains nnquestionably  valuable  historical  evidence." 

'*\'aluable  historical  evidence"  of  what?  The  ques- 
tion is  not  whether  this  chapter  contains  historical  evi- 
dence of  something,  but  whether  it  is  itself  historical.  It 
is  well  that  the  reviewer  did  not  say  outright  that  the 
scholars  whom  he  names  accept  the  chapter  as  historical, 
for  Driver  in  his  "Introduction"  says: 

The  historical  improbabilities  of  the  narrative  contained  in 
this  chapter  have  been  exaggerated ;  but  though  the  four  names 
in  verse  i  correspond  more  or  less  exactly  with  those  of  Kings 
(about  B.  C.  2300).  which  have  been  discovered  recently  in  the 
inscriptions,  there  is  at  present  (December,  1896)  no  monu- 
mental corroboration  of  any  part  of  the  following  narrative 
(p.  15). 

The  reviewer  is  "inclined  to  be  amused"  at  Hommel's 
efforts  to  "pose  as  a  defender  of  orthodoxy,"  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  "he  frankly  accepts  every  principle  that 
characterizes  modern  critical  procedure." 

It  is  still  more  amusing  to  see  how  completely  the 
reviewer  fails  here  to  see  the  point.  The  fact  that  Hom- 
mel  is  himself  a  free  critic,  and  that  notwithstanding  that 
he  comes  to  the  defense  of  orthodoxy,  is  the  most  strik- 
ing feature  of  his  w^ork.  He  was  once  in  full  agreement 
w^ith  those  wdiom  he  now  rebukes,  and  he  rebukes  them 
although  he  has  only  in  part  escaped  from  the  use  of 
their  methods. 

Once  more,  this  reviewer  shows  his  own  animus 
toward  Hommel  and  his  contention  by  the  following 
remarks : 

One  wonders,  therefore,  whether,  after  all,  the  volume  is 
not  an  attempt  to  gain  the  favor  of  a  certain  class  of  people 
who  are  anxious  to  find  men  with  certain  reputation  for  scholar- 
ship, uttering  sharp  words  against  what  they  are  pleased  to  call 
''higher  criticism,"  and  whether  Hommel  has  not  joined  a  class 


264  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

of  writers,  of  which  there  are  some  examples  in  recent  years, 
who  have  attempted  to  take  advantage  of  a  popular  feeling 
against  criticism  to  write  books  without  having  anything  of  new 
and  valuable  character  to  present. 

I  leave  this  piece  of  charitable  judging  to  speak  for 
itself,  only  adding  that  it  is  better  to  reply  to  men's  argu- 
ments than  to  cast  suspicion  on  their  motives. 


[Jan.  I,  1898.] 

LYMAN    ABBOTT    ANALYZED. 

A  paper  was  recently  read  before  the  meeting  of 
Congregational  ministers  in  New  York  by  Prof.  G.  F. 
Wright,  of  Oberlin,  in  which,  taking  his  stand  in  the 
year  4001,  and  commenting  on  an  ancient  document  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  entitled  "Theology  of  an  Evolu- 
tionist. By  Lyman  Abbott,"  he  found,  by  a  strictly  scien- 
tific analysis,  that  it  was  a  composite  document.  He 
proved  this  by  arraying  two  sets  of  extracts  from  it  in 
parallel  columns,  and  showing  that  they  were  too  con- 
tradictory to  have  come  from  the  pen  of  one  man.  He 
concluded,  therefore,  that  Lyman  Abbott  was  not  one 
name,  but  two,  which  had  come  in  the  course  of  time  to 
be  understood  as  one :  that  is,  that  a  part  of  the  book  was 
written  by  one  Ly  Man  and  the  other  by  A.  Bott,  and 
that  the  two  had  been  blended  together  by  a  bungling 
editor,  who  quoted  from  one  and  the  other  alternately. 
He  found  occasionally,  however,  a  sentence  so  peculiar 
in  stvle  that  he  could  not  think  that  either  Ly  Man  or 
A.  Bott  would  have  written  such  stuf¥;  so  he  supposed 
that  the  redactor  stuck  these  in  on  his  own  responsibility. 
Such  sentences,  for  example,  as  this :  ''Every  man  is  two 
men — a  divine  man  and  a  human  man,  an  earthly  man 
and  a  superearthy  man." 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  265 

It  would  be  interesting"  to  see  that  essay  in  print.  It 
would  possibly  enable  the  Brooklyn  evolutionist  to  see 
himself  as  others  see  him. 


[Jan.  I,  1898.1 

A    STEP    TOWARD    RO.ME. 

When  the  Emperor  of  China  became  disaffected 
toward  Li  Hung  Chang  during-  the  war  with  Japan, 
and  humiliated  him  by  taking  from  him  his  peacock 
feather  and  his  yellow  jacket,  all  the  \\'estern  world  had 
a  good  laugh.  We  little  dreamed  that  soon  after  the 
close  of  that  war  high  dignitaries  in  a  theological  semi- 
nary of  our  own  civilized  country  would  imitate  Li,  not 
by  putting  oft*,  but  by  putting  on,  the  yellow  jacket  and 
peacock  feather.  But  we  have  it  on  the  authority  of  an 
editorial  in  the  ludcpciidcut  that  a  trick  of  this  kind  was 
played  by  the  professors  of  L'nion  Theological  Seminary 
on  the  last  day  of  Professor  Cheyne's  recent  lectures  in 
that  institution.  The  editor  tells  us  that  two  or  three 
years  ago  some  of  the  dignitaries  of  the  universities  got 
together  and  agreed  that  on  public  occasions  "the  bach- 
elor of  arts  should  wear  one  sort  of  gown  or  toga,  the 
master  of  arts  another ;  the  doctor  of  divinity  should 
wear  a  scarlet  hood  hanging  down  on  the  back  of  his 
gown  ;  the  doctor  of  laws  a  hood  of  some  other  color,  we 
forget  what,  and  so  through  the  list,  and  a  special  bar 
or  stripe  somewhere  on  the  hood,  we  believe,  should  bear 
the  colors  of  the  institution  which  conferred  the  degree." 
He  then  describes  the  occasion  just  mentioned  at  L^nion : 

The  other  day  Professor  Cheyne  delivered  the  last  of  his 
series  of  lectures  in  the  chapel  of  the  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary in  this  city.  The  new  president  of  the  seminary  was  pres- 
ent and  all  the  professors,  and  each  doctor  was  resplendent  in 
silk  and  scarlet. 


266  SHORT  ESSAYS   IN 

Let  the  reader  take  notice  that  this  was  not  an  assem- 
bly of  Roman  CathoHc  bishops  or  cardinals,  nor  even  of 
Episcopal  bishops,  but  one  of  Presbyterian  professors. 
But  what  kind  of  Presbyterians?  The  old-fashioned 
Presbyterian  would  as  soon  have  appeared  with  a  mon- 
key's cap  on  his  head  and  a  hand-organ  swung  to  his 
neck.  These  "polychrome  scholars,"  as  the  Independent 
styles  them,  were  the  Presbyterian  professors  who,  under 
the  lead  of  Prof.  C.  A.  Briggs,  are  trying  to  lead  the 
young  men  of  this  country  into  disbelief  of  large  por- 
tions of  the  Bible.  How  extremes  do  meet — starting  off 
for  something  new  in  one  direction,  and  in  the  other 
turning  back  to  the  dark  ages  and  worshiping  "man- 
millinery."  The  Independent  very  properly,  though  quite 
mildly,  rebukes  this  folly,  and  I  would  be  glad,  if  space 
permitted,  to  copy  its  editorial. 


[Jan.  15,  189S.] 
THE    SONG    OF    SONGS. 

I  am  requested  by  J.  D.  Forsythe,  of  Des  Moines,  la., 
to  express  myself  on  the  questions  which  have  been 
raised  respecting  Solomon's  Song ;  and  this  request  has 
reminded  me  that  I  received  from  J.  W.  Ellis,  of  Platts- 
burg,  Mo.,  a  copy  of  his  new  translation  and  analysis  of 
the  song,  with  the  request  that  I  review  it.  I  have  hesi- 
tated about  both  of  these  requests,  and  have  delayed 
complying  with  them,  because  the  song  is  to  me  an 
enigma,  and  I  am  not  fond  of  writing  on  subjects  which 
I  do  not  understand. 

While  studying  this  peculiar  composition  many  years 
ago  under  some  of  the  old  commentators,  I  tried  hard  to 
see  something  prophetic  in  it,  but  I  failed,  and  I  have 
never  yet  succeeded.    I  am  not  surprised,  therefore,  that 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  267 

all  very  recent  interpreters  have  abandoned  the  idea  that 
the  Shulamite  in  some  way  represents  the  church,  and 
Solomon  the  Lord  Jesus.  There  is  no  sustained  analogy 
in  any  part  of  the  song  to  anything  connected  with  Christ 
or  the  church.  The  theory  first  proposed,  I  believe,  by 
Ewald,  and  now  very  commonly  adopted  by  those  who 
claim  to  understand  the  song,  that  it  is  a  drama  in  five 
acts,  in  which  the  Shulamite,  Solomon,  and  certain 
''daughters  of  Jerusalem"  are  the  principal  actors,  has- 
much  more  in  its  favor,  and  yet  to  my  mind  it  is  not 
satisfying.  I  have  read  it  again  and  again  within  the 
past  few  years,  as  set  forth  in  various  periodicals  and 
by  various  writers,  and  I  have  now  before  me  both  the 
version  by  Bro.  Ellis,  mentioned  above,  and  that  of  Pro- 
fessor ]\Ioulton,  of  Chicago  University,  which  I  noticed 
in  these  columns  last  spring.  The  latter  uses  the  text  of 
the  Revised  Aversion,  while  the  former,  as  stated  above, 
gives  a  new  version.  The  plot  and  the  dramatis  pcrsonae 
set  forth  in  the  two  are  so  nearly  alike  that  I  will  not 
here  mention  the  differences.  If  any  of  my  readers  wish 
to  study  them,  let  them  order  from  the  ]\Iacmillan  Com- 
pany, Xew  York,  "Biblical  Idyls,"  by  R.  G.  ^^.loulton, 
and  from  J.  W.  Ellis,  Plattsburg,  ^lo.,  his  pamphlet 
entitled  "The  Song  of  Songs." 

In  both  of  these  expositions  the  text  is  divided  into 
the  form  of  the  supposed  dialogue,  and  the  names  of  the 
speakers  are  interpolated  at  the  proper  places.  When  I 
read  either  of  them,  with  these  helps,  the  theory  runs 
very  smoothly  through  the  song :  but  when  I  then  at- 
tempt to  read  the  song  in  the  Scripture  text,  I  find  that 
after  the  first  two  chapters,  or  three,  in  which  it  is  easy 
to  imagine  the  theory  correct,  I  get  lost.  In  other  words, 
the  theory  seems  workable  in  the  first  and  a  part  of  the 
second  act.  and  then  it  draws  too  much  on  the  imasrina- 


268  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

tion  of  the  reader  to  justify  the  conchision  that  he  is 
following  the  thought  of  the  original  writer.  I  conclude, 
therefore,  that  whatever  may  be  the  plot  which  existed 
in  the  mind  of  the  author,  our  interpreters  can  scarcely 
yet  be  confident  that  they  have  traced  it  out.  Further- 
more, if  their  theory  of  the  song  is  correct,  I  should  like 
for  some  of  them  to  give  a  better  reason  than  they  have 
yet  given  for  putting  such  a  document  into  the  sacred 
Scriptures.  They  have  not  pointed  out  to  me  anything 
in  it  to  edify  men  or  to  glorify  God. 


[Jan.  22,  1898.] 

McGIFFERT'S    APOSTOLIC    AGE. 

We  have  received  from  the  publishers,  Charles  Scrib- 
ner's  Sons,  the  fifth  volume  of  the  series  entitled  "The 
International  Theological  Library."  It  will  be  remem- 
bered that  Driver's  "Introduction  to  the  Literature  of 
the  Old  Testament"  is  the  first  of  this  series,  and  that 
the  whole  series  is  under  the  general  editorship  of  Profs. 
C.  A.  Briggs  and  S.  D.  F.  Salmond. 

The  full  title  of  the  present  volume  is  ''A  History  of 
Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Age."  The  author  is  Arthur 
Cushman  McGiffert,  Ph.  D.,  D.  D.,  professor  of  church 
history,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York.  The 
abbreviated  title  on  the  back  of  the  book  is,  ''The  Apos- 
tolic Age,  McGiifert ;"  and  I  call  it  McGififert's  Apos- 
tolic Age  because,  as  the  reader  will  see  further  on,  it  is 
not  the  apostolic  age  of  the  New  Testament,  and  I  think 
that  we  should  give  Professor  McGiffert  due  credit  for 
it.  It  is  a  volume  of  672  pages,  not  counting  those  of 
the  preface  and  the  index,  and  its  contents  manifest  a 
vast  amount  of  careful  thought  as  well  as  a  good  general 
acquaintance  with  the  literature  of  the  subject.    The  first 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  269 

chapter,  a  comparatively  short  one,  is  devoted  to  "The 
Origin  of  Christianity ;"  the  second,  a  longer  one,  to 
''Primitive  Jewish  Christianity;"  the  third,  another  short 
one,  to  "The  Christianity  of  Paul ;"  the  fourth,  including 
nearly  one-third  of  the  whole  book,  to  ''The  Work  of 
Paul;"  the  fifth,  to  "The  Christianity  of  the  Church  at 
Large ;"  and  the  last,  to  "The  Developing  Church."  I 
shall  have  something  to  say,  from  time  to  time,  on  all  of 
these  chapters ;  for  the  work  has  been  received  by  the 
school  of  criticism  represented  in  this  country  by  Pro- 
fessor Briggs  with  hearty  applause,  and  we  may  consider 
it  a  fair  representative  of  the  present  phase  of  New 
Testament  criticism  among  that  class  of  scholars. 

At  present  I  speak  only  of  some  things  that  I  find  in 
the  first  chapter,  the  one  on  the  origin  of  Christianity. 
Passing  by  what  he  says  in  this  chapter  on  Judaism  and 
on  John  the  Baptist,  although  under  both  heads  there  are 
some  things  objectionable,  I  call  attention  to  what  he 
says  of  Jesus  himself.  His  conception  of  the  personal 
experience  of  Christ  is  not  that  of  the  New  Testament 
writers.  The  latter  represent  him  as  foreseeing  clearly 
from  the  beginning  of  his  ministry  the  whole  course  of 
his  earthly  career,  and  as  entering  upon  it  with  the  delib- 
erate purpose  of  bringing  it  to  the  end  which  it  actually 
reached.  But  Professor  McGiffert,  following  in  the 
wake  of  German  rationalists,  regards  him  as  starting 
into  his  ministry  with  only  vague  conceptions  of  himself, 
and  gradually  coming  to  believe  himself  the  Messiah. 
Jesus  reached  one  conclusion  after  another  in  regard  to 
his  own  future  and  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  the  progress 
of  events  revealed  them  to  him.     The  author  says : 

It  was  in  connection  with  his  baptism  that  Jesus  seems  to 
have  received  for  the  first  time  the  revelation  of  his  own  Mes- 
siahship,  of  his  own  intimate  and  peculiar  relation  to  the  king- 


270        ■  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

dom  for  whose  coming  he  was  looking.  The  words  that  he  is 
reported  to  have  heard  spoken  from  heaven  on  that  occasion, 
"Thou  art  my  beloved  Son,  in  thee  I  am  well  pleased,"  imply 
nothing  less  than  his  conviction  of  his  Messiahship ;  and  that 
he  had  not  previously  reached  that  conviction  is  rendered  prob- 
able by  the  fact  that  the  temptation  immediately  followed.  That 
experience  can  be  understood  only  in  its  relation  to  Jesus'  Mes- 
sianic consciousness;  and  if  that  consciousness  had  come  to  him 
at  an  earlier  time,  the  remarkable  scene  described  in  such  poetic 
form  by  Matthew  and  Luke  must  have  taken  place  sooner. 

This  interpretation  of  the  scene  at  the  baptism,  and 
of  the  temptation,  is  remarkable,  both  for  what  it  affirms 
and  for  what  it  ignores  in  the  text.  In  the  first  place, 
the  voice  which  he  is  "reported"  to  have  heard  from 
heaven  (the  author  seems  to  doubt  whether  he  really 
heard  it)  said  not  a  word  about  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus  ;  it  spoke  only  of  his  sonship.  In  the  second  place, 
the  question  raised  in  his  temptation  was  not,  "If  thou 
art  the  Messiah,"  but,  "If  thou  art  the  Son  of  God." 
These  are  the  affirmations  which  take  the  place  of 
those  in  the  text ;  and  the  matter  in  the  text,  which  is 
ignored,  is  the  visible  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon 
Jesus,  by  the  aid  of  which  he  was  at  once  filled  with  the 
knowledge  of  all  that  pertained  to  his  mission  and  his 
ministry.  Professor  McGift'ert  has  no  use  for  miracu- 
lous inspiration  as  respects  either  Christ  or  his  apostles. 
He  claims  that  the  temptation  was  a  purely  inward  strug- 
gle, growing  out  of  his  doubt  as  to  whether  he  really 
was  the  IMessiah.  A  voice  from  God  on  high  had  just 
declared  him  the  Messiah,  says  our  author,  but  Jesus 
immediately  doubted  the  truth  of  what  God  had  said,  and 
the  struggle  over  this  doubt  was  his  temptation !  A  won- 
derful example,  this,  of  faith  in  his  Father!  Pity  that 
Nathaniel  was  not  there  to  teach  him  a  readier  faith. 

By  the  by,  if  the  temptation  of  Jesus  was  of  a  purely 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  271 

spiritual  nature,  it  is  a  strange  kind  of  "poetic  form"' 
which  ^^latthew  and  Luke  have  given  to  it.  I  shoukl 
rather  .-ay  that  if  the  struggle  was  a  purely  inward  and 
spiritual  one,  their  account  of  the  proposals  to  turn 
stones  into  bread,  to  jump  from  a  high  pinnacle,  and  to 
bow  down  to  Satan,  instead  of  being  poetic,  is  a  very 
groveling  representation,  void  of  any  analogy  to  the 
process  which  it  was  intended  to  depict. 

Our  author  teaches  that  Jesus  owed  his  conception  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  to  his  Jewish  training,  and  not  to 
his  innate  knowledge  of  truth ;  and  also,  contrary  to  the 
Gospels,  that  he  regarded  the  kingdom  as  already  in 
existence  during  his  natural  life.     He  says: 

But  the  combination  of  the  idea  of  God's  fatherhood,  the 
fruit  of  Jesus'  own  religious  experience  with  the  conception  of 
the  kingdom  of  God.  which  he  owed  to  his  Jewish  birth  and 
training,  led  him  gradually,  perhaps,  but  inevitably,  to  regard 
that  kingdom  as  a  present  and  not  a   future  thing. 

Strange  language  this  for  one  who  has  read  the  oft- 
repeated  allusions  to  the  kingdom  as  yet  in  the  future! 
And  stranger  still  the  thought  that  Jesus  was  led  grad- 
ually to  think  this  and  that  about  himself  and  his  king- 
dom. 

But  these  are  not  the  only  particulars  in  which  Jesus, 
according  to  men  who  know  his  experiences  better  than 
his  apostles  did,  was  gradually  taught  by  passing  events. 
Our  author  gravely  informs  us  that  he  can  not  have 
])rcached  long  "without  discovering  that  there  were  many 
of  his  countrymen  who  would  not  repent;"  and  again, 
"he  would  not  have  preached  long  without  realizing  that 
the  hostility  of  the  authorities,  so  early  manifested,  would 
result  in  his  speedy  execution."  As  a  consequence  of 
this  first  conclusion,  "the  necessity  of  a  judgment,  by 
which  should  be  determined  man's  fitness  for  the  Mes- 


2/2  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

sianic  kingdom,  was,  of  course,  apparent;"  and  in  con- 
sequence of  the  second,  "it  was  inevitable  that  he  should 
think  of  himself  as  coming  again  to  announce  the  con- 
summated kingdom,  and  to  fulfill  in  preparation  there- 
for the  office  of  Messianic  judge."  All  these  facts, 
which,  according  to  the  Gospels,  he  knew  from  the  begin- 
ning, became  known  to  Jesus,  according  to  Professor 
McGiffert  and  his  teachers,  by  observation  and  reflection, 
just  as  similar  matters  come  to  the  knowledge  or  belief 
of  ordinary  men.  In  this  manner,  throughout  his  account 
of  Jesus,  he  humanizes  Jesus,  and  completely  ignores  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  was  given  to  him  with- 
out measure.  He  substitutes  for  plain  statements  of  the 
Gospels  conceits  of  rationalists  like  Strauss,  Renan  and 
others,  which  he  has  borrowed,  and,  to  some  extent, 
worked  over.  It  would  be  interesting  to  know  how  Pro- 
fessor Briggs,  Preserved  Smith,  L.  W.  Bacon,  and  other 
American  "evangelical  critics,"  regard  this  representa- 
tion of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 


[Jan.  29,  1898.] 

McGIFFERT'S    APOSTOLIC    AGE. 

According  to  the  author  of  this  book,  four  different 
kinds  of  Christianity  are  set  forth  in  the  New  Testament, 
viz. :  Primitive  Jewish  Christianity,  Gentile  Christianity, 
the  Christianity  of  Paul,  and  the  Christianity  of  the 
church  at  large.  I  devote  my  space  this  week  to  his 
chapter  on  the  first  of  these;  and  it  may  be  well  to 
remark  that,  if  I  appear  to  give  more  attention  to  this 
book  than  is  due  to  the  work  of  an  individual,  I  answer, 
he  is  a  representative  of  a  richly  endowed  and  famous 
Presbyterian  theological  seminary,  and  also  a  chosen 
representative  of  the  phase  of  recent  criticism  which  a 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  273 

few  scholars  are  industriously  propagating  in  this  coun- 
try and  Great  Britain.  His  utterances  are  therefore  more 
significant  by  far,  and  more  worthy  of  careful  criticism, 
than  they  would  be  on  their  own  merits. 

This  chapter  is  remarkable  for  three  things :  for  its 
utterances  respecting  the  practices  of  the  early  Jewish 
disciples,  respecting  the  crude  conceptions  governing  the 
minds  of  the  apostles,  and  respecting  the  many  historical 
mistakes  made  by  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Acts.  I 
shall  point  out  some  examples  under  each  of  these  heads. 
I  shall  not  need  to  discuss  them  elaborately ;  for  if  there 
is  any  book  in  the  Bible  that  the  readers  of  the  Christian 
Standard  understand,  it  is  Acts  of  Apostles.  Here  we 
are  at  home ;  and  we  need  only  to  know  what  a  man  has 
said  in  order  to  judge  whether  he  is  right  or  wrong. 

We  are  told  in  regard  to  the  great  Pentecost : 

It  was  not  the  birthday  of  the  Christian  church,  as  it  is  so 
commonly  called,  for  the  Christian  church  was  in  existence 
before  Pentecost;  nor  was  it  the  day  on  which  began  the  dis- 
pensation of  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  his  promised  coming  preceded, 
or  was  at  least  closely  connected  with,  the  resurrection,  so  that 
it  was  through  the  Spirit's  enlightening  influence  that  they  be- 
came convinced  that  he  still  lived,  and  was  still  with  them. 

He  argues  for  this  last  position  in  the  following 
logical  style  : 

As  Jesus  declared  on  an  earlier  occasion  that  it  was  not 
flesh  and  blood,  but  his  Father  in  heaven,  that  had  revealed 
his  Messiahship  to  Peter,  it  could  not  have  been  mere  flesh  and 
blood  that  had  convinced  Peter  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord. 

That  is,  Peter  was  not  convinced,  as  the  Gospel  of 
Luke  declares,  by  seeing  the  Lord  alive,  but  by  some 
mysterious  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit!  To  be  con- 
vinced that  a  dead  man  has  come  to  life,  it  is  not  enough 
to  see  him  alive.     So  the  author  concludes  that  *'the  Holy 


274  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Spirit  promised  by  Jesus  before  his  death  had  already 
been  received  by  his  disciples."  True,  the  author  of  Acts 
did  not  thus  think ;  for,  "in  accordance  with  his  general 
conception,  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Acts  finds  the 
chief  significance  of  Pentecost  in  the  descent  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  whom  he  regarded  as  not  given  till  then"  (pp.  48, 
50).  You  see,  the  author  of  Acts  was  not  a  "critic,"  nor 
a  professor  in  Union  Theological  Seminary. 

This  is  not  the  only  point  in  which  the  author  of  Acts 
misunderstood  Pentecost.  The  speaking  in  tongues  on 
that  occasion  "was  evidently  the  frenzied  or  ecstatic 
utterance  of  sounds  ordinarily  unintelligible  both  to 
speakers  and  hearers,  except  to  such  as  might  be  en- 
dowed by  the  Holy  Spirit  with  a  special  gift  of  inter- 
pretation. ...  It  was  apparently  this  'gift  of  tongues' 
with  which  the  disciples  were  endowed  at  Pentecost,  and 
they  spoke,  therefore,  not  in  foreign  languages,  but  in 
the  ecstatic,  frenzied,  unintelligible  speech  of  which  Paul 
tells  us  in  his  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians." 

Now,  in  these  utterances  Professor  McGiffert  has  not 
forgotten  what  Luke  says  about  the  multitude  from 
many  foreign  nations  hearing,  "every  man  in  his  own 
tongue  in  which  he  was  born."  He  has  not  forgotten 
it,  but  he  has  discovered  that  it  is  not  true.     He  says : 

It  is  clear  that  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Acts  had  another 
conception  of  the  phenomenon  in  question.  He  evidently  sup- 
posed that  the  disciples  used  foreign  tongues,  for  he  took  pains 
to  emphasize  the  fact  that  those  present  heard  them  speaking 
in  the  several  languages  native  to  the  auditors. 

The  author  was  not  a  deliberate  liar,  that  he  should 
so  misrepresent  matters ;  he  was  only  a  romancer.  Our 
Professor  knows  the  reason  why  he  wrote  after  this 
fashion,  and  here  it  is : 

That    reason   is   perhaps   to   be    found    in    the   glamor   vv^hich 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  275 

surrounded  the  infant  church  in  the  eyes  of  the  historian,  who 
was  himself  far  removed  from  the  events  which  he  records. 
Under  the  circumstances,  he  could  hardly  avoid  investing  even 
familiar  occurrences  with  marvel  and  mystery   (pp.  48-52,  n.  i). 

That  means  that  he  could  not  avoid  lying  about  them 
just  a  little. 

Of  Peter's  sermon  on  Pentecost,  our  Professor  has 
many  curious  things  to  say.  Perhaps  the  most  curious 
is  what  he  says  of  the  conditions  of  salvation  laid  down 
in  2 :  38.  A  single  sentence  w411  bring  out  the  first  curi- 
ous point :  "It  is  clear,  in  other  words,  that  though  he 
was  stating  primarily  not  the  conditions  of  salvation  in 
general,  for  which,  indeed,  his  hearers  did  not  ask,  but 
simply  the  particular  duty  devolving  on  them  under  the 
circumstances,  he  was  voicing  at  the  same  time  the  gen- 
eral truth,  that  if  one  is  conscious  of  sin  committed,  he 
must  repent  before  he  can  enjoy  God's  promised  bless- 
ing." He  adds,  a  few  lines  below,  that  "it  would  be  a 
mistake  to  suppose  that  he  intended,  during  those  early 
days,  to  enunciate  a  new  way  of  securing  God's  favor,  or 
a  new  method  of  salvation"  (68:  59).  On  this  I  remark 
that  if  to  repent  and  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins  with  the  added  promise 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  not  a  "new  way  of  securing 
God's  favor,  or  a  new  method  of  salvation,"  Professor 
AIcGififert  ought  to  have  told  his  readers  where  to  find 
this  method  in  some  book  of  the  Old  Testament.  But  to 
affirm  startling  propositions  without  proof,  and  often 
against  proof,  is  a  common  habit  of  the  class  of  critics 
to  which  he  belongs. 

Of  the  baptism  enjoined  in  Peter's  address,  our 
author  says : 

The  connection  of  the  rite  with  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ 
did  not  alter  its  essential  character,  nor  make  it  an  un-Jewish 


2;6  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

thing.  It  meant  that  the  repentance  to  which  it  gave  expression 
was  based  upon  and  due  to  the  recognition  of  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah ;  and  it  may  well  be  that  baptism  in  his  name  was 
demanded  by  Peter  of  the  Jews,  whom  he  addressed  at  Pente- 
cost, just  because  the  great  crime  which  they  had  committed 
was  the  crucifixion  of  the  Messiah,  and  because  they  could  thus 
best  give  voice  to  their  repentance   for  that  crime    (59,  60). 

All  this  is,  of  course,  contradicted  by  the  added  words 
of  Peter,  "For  the  promise  is  to  you,  and  to  your  chil- 
dren, and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the 
Lord  shall  call  to  him  ;"  but  then  it  is  more  likely  that  the 
author-  of  Acts  added  these  words  to  Peter's  sermon  by 
way  of  romancing,  than  that  Professor  McGiffert  can  be 
mistaken.  When  a  critic  says  that  a  thing-  is  so,  a  Biblical 
writer  who  says  the  contrary  must  take  a  back  seat. 

Our  Professor  does  not  believe  that  Jesus  ever  said, 
"Baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the 
Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit"  (Matt.  18:  19).  It  may  be 
he  thinks  that  Christ  directed  his  disciples  to  baptize  their 
converts,  and  if  he  did  ''it  would  be  very  natural  for  a 
scribe  to  add  the  formula,  'Into  the  name  of  the  Father 
and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,'  "  which  was  in 
common  use  in  his  day.  He  doubts,  though,  whether  our 
Lord  went  so  far  as  to  enjoin  baptism  at  all.     Fie  says: 

The  fact  must  be  recognized  that  Paul's  indifference  about 
performing  the  rite  of  baptism  (i  Cor.  i  :  14  sq.)  is  hardly  what 
we  should  expect  if  the  eleven  apostles  received  from  Christ  a 
direct  command  to  baptize :  and  it  is  not  impossible  that  the 
entire  passage  (Matt.  28:19)  is  a  later  addition,  as  maintained 
by  some  scholars    (61,  note  i). 

This  reference  to  Paul's  indifference  about  perform- 
ing the  rite  sounds  like  the  exegesis  of  a  third-rate  pedo- 
baptist  debater  down  in  Texas,  rather  than  like  that  of 
a  professor  in  a  great  theological  seminary.  It  will  pro- 
voke only  a  smile.     But  this  repudiation  of  the  second 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  277 

half  of  the  great  apostolic  commission  is  a  more  serious 
affair.  It  is,  however,  of  a  jnece  with  the  methods  of 
destructive  criticism,  which  unhesitatingly  expunges 
from  the  sacred  text  such  passages  as  stand  in  its  way. 
In  this  connection,  and  in  partial  support  of  this  expung- 
ing process,  the  Professor  says  that  "the  early  disciples, 
and  Paul  as  well,  baptized  into  the  name  of  Christ  alone." 
This  assertion,  adopted  from  Baur,  and  repeated  until  it 
has  become  traditionary  among  the  free  critics,  is  abso- 
lutely without  foundation.  If  the  formula  used  in  the 
commission  occurs  but  once  in  the  Xew  Testament,  as 
Professor  AIcGiffert  insists,  it  is  equally  true  that  the 
expression,  not  a  formula,  "baptized  into  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,"  also  occurs  but  once  ;  and  then  it  is  used  in 
antithesis  to  being  baptized  into  John's  baptism  (Acts 
19:  5).  He  who  says  that  on  this  occasion  the  disciples 
referred  to  were  baptized  into  the  name  of  Christ  alone, 
speaks  without  authority ;  for  though  the  baptism 
brought  them  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  it  also 
brought  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the 
Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 


[Feb.  5.  1898.] 

McGIFFERT'S    APOSTOLIC    AGE. 

If  one  should  open  this  book  with  a  preconception  of 
its  author  as  a  man  of  authority,  it  would  fairly  take  his 
breath  away  to  witness  how  deliberately  he  sets  aside 
many  familiar  truths  and  substitutes  for  them  unfounded 
conceits.  Not  since  I  first  read  Renan's  life  of  Jesus 
and  Baur's  life  of  Paul  have  I  met  with  an  author  who 
so  constantly  impresses  me  in  this  way.  I  shall  present 
as  illustrations  in  this  article  some  of  his  assertions 
respecting  the  preaching  of   Peter,   and  the   life  of  the 


278  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

primitive  disciples,  from  which  a  general  conclusion  may 
be  drawn. 

Let  any  one  who  is  not  familiar  with  the  speeches 
quoted  from  Peter  in  the  first  four  chapters  of  Acts,  read 
them  carefully,  and  then  read  this : 

The  Alessianic  realm  belonged  in  Peter's  thought,  just  as 
in  the  thought  of  his  contemporaries,  not  to  this  seon,  but  to 
another,  and  before  its  inauguration  must  come  the  day  of  judg- 
ment and  the  "end  of  the  world;"  that  is,  the  end  of  the  present 
age.  That  Jesus  was  already  Lord  and  Prince  and  Saviour  did 
not  mean  that  his  kingdom  was  already  a  reality,  and  that  he 
was  exercising  dominion  therein,  but  only  that  he  was  preparing 
the  way  for  its  realization.  By  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  he 
was  fitting  his  followers  for  it,  and  making  its  speedy  establish- 
ment possible.  The  outpouring  was  a  sign  of  its  approach,  but 
not  of  its  actual  presence  (p.  63). 

Here  we  have  a  King  on  his  throne,  exalted  to  the 
right  hand  of  God,  "Lord  and  Prince  and  Saviour,"  and 
sending  down  by  his  authority  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God, 
yet  his  kingdom  is  not  yet  established ;  he  is  not  yet 
exercising  dominion  in  it.  H  there  is  any  more  complete 
nonsense  than  this,  I  don't  want  the  trouble  of  reading  it. 

Again,  speaking  of  the  promise  of  Peter  in  his  first 
discourse,  he  says : 

All  the  blessings  promised  by  the  prophets,  and  longingly 
anticipated  by  the  fathers,  he  assures  his  hearers  they  will  yet 
enjoy,  if  they  repent  and  thus  secure  forgiveness  and  the  Holy 
Ghost.  In  the  present  is  offered  the  opportunity,  not  of  reaHzing 
a  present  salvation,  but  of  making  certain  the  enjoyment  of  a 
future   salvation. 

Here  is  a  deliberate  omission  of  the  baptism  enjoined 
by  Peter  in  connection  with  repentance  and  forgiveness, 
and  disregard  of  this  ordinance  is  characteristic  of  the 
writer.  P)Ut,  more  surprising,  here  is  also  a  denial  that 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
brought  a  present  salvation.     I  think  it  impossible  that 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  279 

the   author  obtained  these   thoughts    from    studying  the 
passages  on  which  he  comments  ;  he  brought  them  with 
him,  and  injected  them  into  the  passage. 
He  says  of  the  disciples  in  Jerusalem: 

They  continued  to  discharge  the  various  duties  that  devohed 
upon  them  as  Jews,  including  participation  in  the  temple  wor- 
ship, and  in  the  offering  of  the  regular  daily  sacrifices   (p.  64). 

Here,  I  suppose,  is  a  slip  of  memory,  for  surely  Pro- 
fessor McGiffert  knows  that  no  one  participated  in  the 
daily  sacrifices  except  the  priests  by  whom  they  were 
offered.  The  disciples,  at  least  many  of  them,  did  not  go 
up  to  the  temple  to  pray,  but  with  the  offering  of  the 
regular  daily  sacrifices  they  had  nothing  to  do. 

This  learned  Presbyterian  professor  seeks  to  deprive 
us  of  all  divine  authority  for  the  Lord's  Supper.  He 
does  so  by  denying  that  Christ  appointed  it,  or  that  the 
first  disciples  observed  it.     He  says : 

That  the  disciples  held  a  special  service  and  partook  of  a 
special  communion  meal  there  is  no  sign.  It  is  far  more  likely 
that  whenever  they  ate  together  they  ate  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Not  that  it  preceded  or  followed  the  ordinary  meal,  but  that  the 
whole  meal  was  the  Lord's  Supper:  that  they  partook  of  no 
ordinary,  secular,  unholy  meals,  of  none  that  was  not  a  Kiiri- 
akon  deipyion,  a  Lord's  Supper. 

Their  failure  to  break  a  special  loaf  as  an  emblem  of 
his  body,  and  to  drink  a  special  cup  as  an  emblem  of  his 
blood,  was  not  an  act  of  neglect  or  disobedience  on  their 
part;  for  the  Lord  had  given  no  precept  on  that  subject. 
On  this  point  we  have  the  following  piece  of  informa- 
tion : 

The  fact  must  be  recognized  that  it  is  not  absolutely  certain 
that  Jesus  himself  actually  instituted  such  a  supper,  and  directed 
his  disciples  to  eat  and  drink  in  remembrance  of  him,  as  Paul 
says  in  i  Cor.  11:24,  25.  Expecting,  as  he  did,  to  return  at  an 
early  day  (cf.  Mark  14:25),  he  can  hardly  have  been  solicitous 


28o  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

to  provide  for  the  preservation  of  his  memory ;  and  it  is  notable 
that  neither  Matthew  nor  Mark  records  such  a  command,  while 
the  passage  in  which  it  occurs  in  Luke  is  omitted  in  many  of 
the  oldest  MSS.,  and  is  regarded  as  an  interpolation  by  West- 
cott  and  Hort.  Even  if  the  words  belong  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke 
(as  some  maintain),  they  are  evidently  dependent  upon  Paul, 
and  supply  no  independent  testimony  as  to  the  original  utter- 
ance of  Christ    (p.  69,  and  note). 

Several  things  in  this  extract  are  suggestive  of  the 
author's  point  of  view.  First,  if  the  passage  is  genuine 
in  Luke,  it  affords  no  ''independent  testimony,"  because 
it  is  dependent  on  I^aul.  It  is  implied  that  this  is  a  poor 
dependence.  Second,  as  the  Gospel  called  Luke's  was 
not,  according  to  the  Professor,  written  by  Luke,  but  by 
some  one  who  lived  many  years  after  Patil's  death,  Paul's 
testimony,  which  is  here  disparaged,  was  much  nearer  in 
time  to  the  original  sources  of  information,  and  would 
for  this  reason,  if  no  other,  be  more  reliable  than  that  of 
this  unknown  writer  of  the  third  Gospel.  Third,  Paul 
declares,  in  reference  to  his  teaching  on  the  subject,  that 
he  received  it  "from  the  Lord"  (i  Cor.  11:23);  and 
unless  this  is  a  false  statement,  the  Lord  did,  "in  the 
night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,"  say  of  the  broken  loaf, 
"This  is  my  body  which  is  for  you  ;  this  do  in  remem- 
brance of  me."  Paul  is  no  great  authority  with  our  Pro- 
fessor, even  when  he  states  a  matter  of  fact,  iniless  the 
fact  is  one  that  the  Professor  can  harmonize  with  his 
critical  theory.  Fourth,  if  the  ordinance  was  constantly 
observed  in  the  churches  wdien  Matthew  and  Mark  wrote, 
and  was  known  as  having  been  appointed  by  the  Lord, 
there  was  no  necessity  that  they  should  say  in  connection 
with  its  institution  that  its  observance  was  in  remem- 
brance of  him.  Everybody  who  had  ever  partaken  of  it, 
and  everybody  who  had  ever  seen  others  do  so,  wottld 
know  this  perfectly  well.     Fifth,  the  Professor  is  unac- 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  281 

countably  mistaken  in  sa}ing-  that  the  words,  "this  do  in 
remembrance  of  me,"  in  Luke's  Gospel,  are  wanting  "in 
many  of  the  oldest  ^NISS. ;"  for  although  W'estcott  and 
Hort  do  pronounce  them,  as  he  says,  an  interpolation, 
they  do  so  chiefly  on  transcriptural  probability,  and  they 
claim  in  support  of  their  decision  only  one  uncial  MS. 
(Dj,  and  a  few  cursives  ("Notes  on  Selected  Readings," 
pp.  63,  64).  The  words  are  found  in  the  three  most 
ancient  and  authoritative  ^ISS.,  the  Alexandrian,  the 
Vatican  and  the  Sinaitic. 

Having  thus  attempted  to  obscure  the  origin  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  to  confound  it  with  the  social  meals 
often  enjoyed  by  the  early  disciples.  Professor  AIcGiffert 
felt  called  upon  to  give  its  true  origin  as  a  memorial 
feast,  and  he  traces  it  to  the  apostle  Paul.  He  says : 
"Though  the  Lord's  Supper  was  everywhere  eaten  by 
Christian  disciples  before  Paul,  it  may  be  said  in  a  cer- 
tain sense  that  it  was  established  by  him  ;  for  it  was  he, 
so  far  as  our  sources  enable  us  to  judge,  who  first  made 
it  a  special  meal  and  separated  it  from  all  others"  (p. 
538).  He  tries  to  support  this  affirmation  by  a  course  of 
reasoning,  if  we  may  call  it  such,  which  runs  through  a 
couple  of  pages ;  but  I  will  not  annoy  the  reader  by 
quoting  and  refuting  it.  There  are  some  false  positions 
that  need  no  refutation. 


[Apr.  2.  1898.1 

THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF    ACTS. 

Professor  AIcGiffert,  in  his  "Apostolic  Age,"^  denies 
that  Luke  is  the  author  of  Acts  of  Apostles,  and  affirms 
that  the  book  was  written  between  80  and  95  A.  D.  In 
the  February  number  of  the  Expositor,  Prof.  \\\  M. 
Ramsey   reviews   his    arguments   on    this   question,    and 


282  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

defends  the  Lucan  authorship.  In  the  course  of  his 
review  he  says  two  things,  to  which  I  call  attention. 
First,  he  speaks  in  the  following  terms  of  the  ignorance 
and  blundering  charged  by  McGiffert  on  the  author  of 

Acts : 

I  can  find  no  parallel  in  literary  history  for  a  supposition  so 
violent.  One  is  used  to  such  maltreatment  of  history  among 
ignorant  students,  who  are  experimenting  to  discover  what  is 
the  minimum  of  knowledge  which  will  be  accepted  as  a  "pass" 
by  an  examiner.  But,  except  among  the  examination  papers  of 
passmen,  I  have  seen  nothing  to  parallel  the  ridiculous  and 
shameless  ignorance  w^hich  is  thus  attributed  to  the  compiler — 
an  ignorance  which  might  almost  suggest  the  theory  that  Acts 
is  the  rejected  examination  paper  in  history  of  some  lazy  candi- 
date for  matriculation  in  some  ancient  university. 

This  is  a  very  apt  illustration.  It  applies  not  only  to 
McGiffert's  representation  of  the  author  of  Acts,  but  to 
the  representation  of  Biblical  w^riters  in  general,  which 
we  find  in  the  books  of  the  rationalistic  critics.  Matthew, 
Mark  and  John,  together  with  the  "redactors"  of  the  Old 
Testament  narratives,  were  all  a  set  of  blunderers  and 
ignoramuses,  if  we  may  believe  the  gentleman  v/ho  know 
much  more  about  Jesus  and  Paul  than  was  known  by 
those  who  were  ''eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the 
word." 

Second,  in  the  closing  paragraph  of  his  review  Pro- 
fessor Ramsey  says : 

We  have  in  Dr.  McGiffert's  work  a  book  which  shows  many 
very  great  qualities,  and  which  might  have  ranked  among  the 
small  number  of  really  good  books,  if  it  had  not  been  spoiled 
by  a  bad  theory  as  to  the  fundamental  document  on  which  it 
must  rest. 

It  is  not,  then,  a  really  good  book;  it  is  one  that  is 
spoiled  by  a  bad  theory.  Such  is  the  judgment,  not  of  a 
''traditionalist,"  but  of  one  who  is  recognized  as  a  critic 
among  critics. 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  283 

Professor  Ramsey  makes  another  remark  that  is  so 
certainly  true,  and  is  spoken  with  such  emphasis,  that  I 
must  quote  it  in  conchision : 

The  fact  is  that,  unless  Acts  is  accepted  as  good  authority, 
we  must  resign  ourselves  to  be  ignorant  about  the  apostolic 
period,  and  must  cease  to  make  any  dogmatic  statements  as  to 
what  is  possible  or  impossible. 


[Feb.  19,  1898.] 

WI-IY    O:\IITTED    BY    MOSES? 

In  the  Expositor  for  June  is  an  article  with  the  head- 
ing, "On  the  Knowledge  of  a  Future  State  Possessed  by 
the  Ancient  Hebrews,"  and  signed  by  A.  Roberts.  After 
showing  that  the  more  enlightened  Hebrews  from  the 
earliest  time  certainly  possessed  a  knowledge  of  a  future 
state,  the  writer  comes  to  the  question  why  nothing  was 
said  of  it  in  the  legislation  of  ]\Ioses  :  and  from  this  part 
of  the  essay  I  quote  the  following: 

Let  us  now  revert  to  the  words  of  Mr.  Gladstone,  quoted  at 
the  beginning  of  this  paper:  "The  religion  of  the  Jews  in  no 
way  rested  upon  future  rewards  and  punishments."  If  this 
statement  is  accepted  without  any  modification,  as  I  suppose  it 
must  De,  it  brings  us  face  to  face  with  a  very  strange,  if  not 
unaccountable,  phenomenon.  V\'e  have  seen,  on  the  very  highest 
authority,  that  the  ancient  patriarchs,  and  pre-eminently  Moses, 
lived  under  the  power  of  the  world  to  come.  But  now  we  are 
confronted  with  the  fact  that  the  great  Jewish  lawgiver,  in  the 
religious  system  which  he  established,  took  no  account  whatever 
of  a  future  state.  Such  is  the  position  occupied  by  those  v.'ho 
believe  (as  the  present  writer  does)  that  Moses  was  the  author 
of  the  legislative  code  contained  in  the  Pentateuch.  I  may  re- 
mark, however,  in  passing,  that  many  in  our  day  do  not  assent 
to  this.  We  are  told  by  Wellhausen  and  his  followers  that 
Moses  had  litde  or  nothing  to  do  with  the  system  of  laws  which 
bears  his  name.  That  code,  it  is  said,  must  be  relegated  to  post- 
exilic   times.     With  this   theory   I   am  just  now   in   nowise  con- 


284  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

cerned,  beyond  expressing  my  disbelief  in  it,  and  pointing  out 
that,  if  adopted,  it  simply  intensifies  the  difficulty  which  has  been 
suggested.  For,  by  general  consent,  the  Jews  as  a  nation  had 
come  firmly  to  believe  in  a  state  of  rewards  and  punishments 
hereafter  before  their  return  from  the  exile,  and  yet  it  is  be- 
lieved that  their  law  was  then  for  the  first  time  promulgated 
without  the  slightest  reference  to  a  world  beyond  the  grave. 
That,  however,  as  has  been  already  said,  is  a  point  with  which 
I  have  at  present  nothing  to  do,  and  which  must  be  left  to  be 
dealt  with  by  Wellhausen  and  those  who  adopt  his  views.  I 
have  here  only  to  consider  the  position  of  those  who  hold  that 
Moses  was  the  human  author  of  the  Jewish  religious  system, 
and  yet  that,  while  himself  a  steadfast  believer  in  immortality, 
he  made  no  reference  in  any  of  his  enactments  to  the  doctrine 
of  a  future  state.  Some  explanation  of  this  singular  fact  must 
be  attempted. 

The  first  theory  at  which  we  may  glance  is  that  of  Bishop 
Warburton.  Warlnirton's  bold  and  original  idea  was  to  change 
what  was  thought  a  formidable  objection  to  the  Jewish  religion 
into  a  conclusive  proof  of  its  supernatural  character.  Let  me 
endeavor  to  state  the  argument  as  briefly  as  possible.  War- 
burton  rests  his  theory  on  the  two  following  principles :  First, 
that  no  religion  could,  in  ordinary  circumstances,  be  established 
in  the  world  without  a  reference  to  future  rewards  and  punish- 
ments ;  and,  secondly,  that  no  doctrine  as  to  recompense  or 
retribution  hereafter  is  to  be  found  in  the  system  instituted  by 
Moses.  From  these  premises  his  inference  is  that  the  Jewish 
dispensation  must  have  been  set  up  and  sustained  by  "an  extra- 
ordinary providence ;"  /'.  c,  it  must  have  had  a  superhuman 
origin,  and  been  attended  by  constant  miraculous  interpositions 
on  the  part  of  God.  The  divine  mission  of  Moses  is  thus 
thought  to  have  been  proved,  and  the  author  regards  his  demon- 
stration as  "very  little  short  of  mathematical  certainty." 

Another  solution  which,  although  accepted  by  some,  appears 
to  me  far  more  paradoxical  than  that  of  Warburton,  has  been 
proposed  by  the  late  Dean  Stanley.  In  his  "Lectures  on  the 
Jewish  Church"  (L,  135).  the  Djan  says:  "The  fact  becomes  of 
real  religious  importance  if  we  trace  the  ground  on  which  this 
silence  respecting  the  future  was  based.  Not  from  want  of 
religion,  but  (if  one  might  use  the  expression)  from  excess  of 
religion,  was  this  void  left  in  the  Jewish  mind.     The  future  was 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  285 

not  denied  or  contradicted,  but  was  overlooked,  set  aside,  over- 
shadowed by  the  consciousness  of  the  living,  actual  presence  of 
God  himself.  That  truth,  at  least  in  the  limited  conceptions  of 
the  youthful  nation,  was  too  vast  to  admit  of  any  rival  truth, 
however  precious."  [yir.  Roberts  easily  refutes  this  theory  by 
reminding  us  how  far  the  early  Israelites  were  from  entertain- 
ing such  an  idea  of  God.  The  Dean  when  propounding  his 
theory  was  forgetful  of  their  conduct  in  the  wilderness  and  in 
the  period  of  the  judges.] 

This  leads  me  to  state  in  conclusion  what  I  humbly  regard 
as  the  true  reason  why  Closes  did  not  include  in  his  legislative 
code  any  reference  to  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punish- 
ments. The  people  of  the  Jezus  were  not  then  prepared  for  such 
a  revelation,  nor  would  they  have  profited  by  it.  Their  long  and 
abject  slavery  in  Egypt  had  wrought  its  own  proper  work  upon 
them.  Everything  leads  us  to  regard  the  Israelites  of  the  Ex- 
odus as  having  been  in  the  most  debased  condition.  They  were, 
in  fact,  little  better  than  a  barbarous  horde,  having  no  noble 
aspirations  and  capable  only  of  being  influenced  by  the  most 
sordid  motives.  [Here  the  writer  brings  forward  many  facts  in 
support  of  this  assertion  which  I  omit.1  What  cared  they  about 
the  invisible  world?  Rewards  and  punishments  in  this  life  they 
could  understand,  but  in  the  language  of  Scripture  they  were 
too  "brutish"  to  feel  the  influence  of  what  was  future  and 
unseen.  And  hence  it  is  no  reproach  to  the  Mosaic  law  that  it 
limited  its  sanctions  to  the  present  world.  That  was  the  only 
discipline  which  could  have  any  good  effect  upon  such  a  people. 

The  reader  will  not  fail  to  see  that  the  theory  here 
briefly  propounded  by  Mr.  Roberts  stands  at  the  opposite 
extreme,  as  respects  the  people  for  whom  ]\Ioses  legis- 
lated, from  that  of  Dean  Stanley,  and  that  it  is  the  more 
plausible  of  the  two  :  btit  I  think  the  last  word  has  not 
yet  been  said  on  this  interesting  subject.  I  am  glad  it 
has  been  called  up  again  for  consideration  in  stich  a 
magazine  as  the  Expositor,  and  I  trust  that  the  result 
will  be  the  production  of  a  more  satisfactory  explanation 
than  any  yet  given.  I  have  some  thoughts  of  my  own 
on   the    subject   which   I   may   yet   publish,    and   which. 


286  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

whether  correct  or  incorrect,  may  contribute  to  its  final 
elucidation. 


[March  19,  1898.] 

WHY    OMITTED    BY    MOSES? 

I  begin  to-day  the  writing  of  my  weekly  contribution 
to  the  Standard  under  very  solemn  circumstances.  J.  B. 
Skinner,  president  of  Hamilton  Female  College,  has  just 
been  called  away  from  his  arduous  responsibilities  on 
earth  to  his  rest  in  the  spirit  world.  This  is  no  place  for 
the  tribute  that  is  due  to  his  memory,  but  it  is  an  hour 
for  solemn  reflection  and  sorrow.  This  is  also  the  last 
day  in  the  sixty-eighth  year  of  my  own  life,  and  to-mor- 
row I  enter  upon  my  sixty-ninth.  Very  appropriately  I 
am  called  on  by  a  brother  in  Indiana  to  discuss  a  phase 
of  Bible  teaching  in  regard  to  a  future  life.  This  brother 
has  a  theory  by  which  to  account  for  the  oft-mentioned 
fact  that  Moses,  or  rather  that  God  through  Moses,  made 
no  mention  of  rewards  and  punishments  after  death.  I 
am  not  sure  that  I  exactly  understand  his  theory,  and  he 
does  not  write  for  publication;  so  I  will  content  myself 
with  stating  briefly  my  own  opinion  on  the  subject. 

Notwithstanding  the  silence  of  the  Pentateuch,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  on  the  part  of  those  who  believe  in  the 
New  Testament  that  the  future  state  of  existence  was 
known  to  the  patriarchs  and  to  the  saints  under  the 
Mosaic  economy.  This  being  so,  they  must  have  passed 
their  lives  in  anticipation  of  it,  and  they  must  have  known 
that  their  conduct  here  would,  under  the  rule  of  a  right- 
eous God;,  have  much  to  do  with  determining  their  future 
condition.  The  way  in  which  they  could  live  and  please 
God  here,  was  clearly  revealed,  and  they  could  but  infer 
that   if   they   pleased   God   in   this   life,   they   would   be 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  287 

blessed  by  him  in  the  future  hfe  ;  but  the  exact  conditions 
of  future  happiness  were  not  revealed  to  them.  Why? 
I  think  it  was  because  it  was  then  impossible.  These  con- 
ditions involved  the  death  of  the  Son  of  God  for  our 
sins,  and  his  resurrection  for  our  justification.  These 
events  had  not  yet  taken  place,  and  it  would  have  been 
impossible  in  advance  of  their  occurrence  to  impart  to 
the  human  mind  an  adequate  conception  of  them.  More- 
over, this  condition  is  unavailing  without  belief  in  it  on 
the  part  of  man,  and  loving  obedience  to  him  who  died 
and  rose  again.  These  conditions  could  not  have  been 
complied  with  under  the  old  covenants.  Seeing,  then, 
that  the  true  and  only  conditions  of  obtaining  eternal  life 
were  not  known,  and  could  not  be  known,  before  the 
death  of  Christ,  silence  in  regard  to  the  rewards  and 
punishments  belonging  to  that  state  was  a  necessity.  To 
have  ofifered  men  eternal  life  on  the  condition  of  keeping 
the  law^  of  ]\Ioses,  would  have  been  deceptive:  for  God 
knew  then  what  was  revealed  afterward,  that  by  works 
of  law  no  flesh  can  be  justified  before  him.  To  have 
threatened  every  man  with  eternal  punishment  who  failed 
to  keep  the  law  of  ^Moses,  would  have  driven  every  man 
to  despair ;  for  every  man  was  conscious  of  shortcomings. 
Nothing  that  was  then  required  of  men,  or  that  then 
could  be  required  with  intelligence  on  their  part,  could 
secure  eternal  life,  and  it  therefore  became  a  necessity  to 
omit  all  references  to  it  in  the  law  that  was  given.  If 
this  law  had  been  a  final  expression  of  God's  will  this 
omission  would  have  remained  an  enigma  :  but  as  the  law 
itself  was  but  a  stepping-stone  leading  up  to  Christ,  the 
way  of  God  in  the  matter  is  vindicated. 

While  this  is  true,  we  must  not  forget  that  in  the 
mind  and  purpose  of  God  during  those  preparatory  ages 
there  was  connected  with  the  sacrifices  then  ofifered  the 


288  SHORT   ESSAYS  IN 

complete  and  final  sacrifice  yet  to  be  offered;  so  that,  in 
the  language  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  "a  death 
having  taken  place  for  the  redemption  of  the  transgres- 
sions that  were  under  the  first  covenant,  they  that  have 
been  called  may  receive  the  promise  of  eternal  inherit- 
ance" (9:  12).  This  all  agrees  with  another  statement 
in  this  Epistle,  "that  the  way  into  the  holy  place  was  not 
yet  made  manifest  while  the  first  tabernacle  was  stand- 
ing"  (9:8). 


[Apr.  2,  1898.] 
THE    PENDING    CONTROVERSY. 

The  opening  editorial  paragraph  in  the  Expository 
Times  for  March  contains  a  very  accurate  estimate  of 
the  controversy  over  matters  of  criticism,  which  is  com- 
ing in  this  country,  and  the  first  skirmishes  of  which 
have  already  come.     T  quote  it  in  full : 

The  signs  of  the  times  are  unmistakable.  A  great  contro- 
versy must  needs  come  in  the  American  church.  It  is  not  to  be, 
as  sometimes  heretofore,  a  debate  of  sect  against  sect;  the 
dividing  lines  between  parties  are  to  cut  across  denominational 
boundaries,  and  that  is  to  be  again  fulfilled  which  was  spoken 
by  the  prophet,  "One's  foes  shall  be  they  of  his  own  household." 
Such  a  controversy  is  peculiarly  apt  to  be  attended  with  acri- 
mony; but  it  is  not  without  its  compensations.  If  there  shall 
arise  mutual  alienations  within  the  pale  of  the  sects,  there  will 
also  be  a  drawing  together  of  men  like  minded  across  sectarian 
lines.  It  is  not  to  be  assumed,  of  course,  that  the  divine  cause 
of  Christian  brotherhood  is,  on  the  whole,  to  be  a  loser  in  the 
impending  conflict. 


[Apr.  2,  1898.] 

SLASHING    AT    THE    TEXT. 

This  is  the  phrase  by  which  the  American  editor  of 
the  Expository   Times  characterizes  the  work  of  Well- 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  289 

hauscn  in  his  volume  of  the  Polychrome  Bible.  He  is 
the  head  master  of  modern  criticism,  and  it  was  but  a 
just  tribute  to  his  leadership  that  he  was  selected  as 
editor  and  translator  of  at  least  one  book  in  this  new 
Bible,  notwithstanding-  his  avowed  infidelity.  It  would 
have  been  a  piece  of  ingratitude  for  his  pupils  to  have 
passed  him  by.  But  he  is  a  little  too  arbitrary  and  radical 
to  suit  even  the  friends  of  this  rainbow  enterprise.  The 
editor  just  mentioned  speaks  of  his  work  in  the  follow- 
ing terms  : 

Altogether  the  average  reader  is  going  to  be  amazed  at  the 
reckless  slashing  at  the  text  with  omissions  and  amendations 
merely  conjectural,  without  the  pretense  of  support  from  manu- 
script or  versions,  dictated  sometimes  by  the  translator's  poetic 
taste,  sometimes  by  his  lack  of  taste.  Such  tampering  by  an 
editor  with  his  author's  text  is  contrary  to  all  that  the  average 
reader  is  accustomed  to  hear  about  the  textual  critic's  scrupu- 
lous respect  for  manuscript  authority. 

As  an  instance  of  this  slashing,  he  cites  the  omission 
from  the  nineteenth  Psalm  of  the  third  verse:  'There  is 
no  speech  nor  language;  their  voice  is  not  heard,"  on 
the  ground  that  it  is  "extremely  prosaic."  This  is  an 
example  not  only  of  reckless  slashing,  but  of  extreme 
want  of  taste  on  the  part  of  Wellhausen.  Joseph  Addi- 
son, in  his  inimitable  paraphrase  of  this  noble  Psalm, 
makes  of  this  "prosaic"  verse  one  of  the  most  beautiful 
conceptions  in  the  whole  poem  : 

"What  though  in  solemn  silence  all 
Move  round  this  dark  terrestrial  ball — 
What  though  no  real  voice  nor  sound 
Amid  their  radiant  orbs  be  found — 
In  reason's  ear  they  all  rejoice. 
And  utter  forth  a  glorious  voice; 
Forever  singing  as  they  shine. 
The  hand  that  made  us  is  divine." 
It  is  my  opinion,  which  I  give   for  what  it  may  be 


290  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

worth,  whether  much  or  Httle,  that  this  many-colored 
attempt  to  give  the  world  a  new  Bible  in  place  of  the  one 
w^hich  God  gave  us,  is  destined  to  be  a  more  effective 
weapon  for  the  overthrow  of  this  pernicious  criticism  of 
which  Wellhausen  is  the  great  apostle,  than  anything  yet 
attempted  by  its  most  skillful  foes. 


[Apr.  1 6,  1898.] 

A    TRIBUTE    TO    THE    BIBLE. 

The  Irish  orator,  Charles  Phillips,  who  was  a  con- 
temporary of  Tom  Paine,  but  outlived  him,  once  gave 
utterance  in  a  speech  to  the  following  sentiments : 

I  must  see  better  authority  than  Fleet  Street  Temple  before 
I  forego  the  principles  which  at  once  guard  and  consecrate  and 
sweeten  social  intercourse;  which  give  life,  happiness,  and  death, 
hope;  which  constitute  man's  purity,  his  best  protection,  placing 
the  infant's  cradle  and  the  female  couch  under  the  sacred  shelter 
of  the  national  morality.  Neither  Mr.  Paine  nor  Mr.  Palmer, 
nor  all  the  venom-breathing  brood,  shall  swindle  from  me  the 
Book  where  I  have  learned  these  precepts.  In  spite  of  all  their 
scoff  and  scorn  and  menacing,  1  say  of  the  sacred  volume  they 
would  obliterate,  it  is  a  book  of  facts,  as  well  authenticated  as 
any  heathen  history ;  a  book  of  miracles  incontestably  avouched ; 
a  book  of  prophecy  confirmed  by  past  as  well  as  present  fulfill- 
ment ;  a  book  of  poetry  pure  and  natural  and  elevated  even  to 
inspiration ;  a  book  of  morals  such  as  human  wisdom  never 
framed  for  the  perfection  of  human  happiness.  My  Lord,  I 
will  abide  by  the  precepts,  admire  the  beauty,  revere  the  mys- 
teries, and,  as  far  as  in  me  lies,  practice  the  mandates  of  the 
sacred  volume;  and  should  the  ridicule  of  earth  and  the  blas- 
phemy of  hell  assail  me,  I  shall  console  myself  by  the  con- 
templation of  those  blessed  spirits  w^ho,  in  the  same  blessed 
cause,  have  toiled  and  shone  and  suffered.  In  the  "goodly  fel- 
lowship of  the  saints,"  in  the  noble  army  of  martyrs,  in  the 
society  of  the  great  and  good  and  wise  of  every  nation,  if  my 
sinfulness  be  not  cleansed  and  my  darkness  illuminated,  at  least 
my  pretensionless   submission   may  be   excused.      If    I    err   with 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  291 

the  luminaries  I  have  chosen  for  my  guide,  I  confess  myself 
captivated  by  the  loveliness  of  their  aberrations;  if  they  err,  it 
is  in  a  heavenly  region  ;  if  they  wander,  it  is  in  fields  of  light ; 
if  they  aspire,  it  is,  at  all  events,  a  glorious  daring;  and,  rather 
than  sink  with  infidelity  into  the  dust,  I  am  content  to  cheat 
myself  with  their  vision  of  eternity.  It  may,  indeed,  be  nothing 
but  a  delusion,  but  then  I  err  with  the  disciples  of  philosophy 
and  virtue ;  with  men  who  have  drunk  deep  at  the  fountain  of 
human  knowledge,  but  who  dissolved  not  the  pearl  of  their 
salvation  in  the  draught.  I  err  with  Bacon,  the  great  confidant 
of  nature,  fraught  with  all  the  learning  of  the  past,  and  almost 
prescient  of  the  future,  yet  too  wise  not  to  know  his  weakness, 
and  too  philosophic  not  to  feel  his  ignorance.  I  err  with  Locke, 
whose  pure  philosophy  taught  him  to  adore  its  source,  whose 
warm  love  of  genuine  liberty  never  chilled  into  rebellion  against 
its  author.  I  err  with  Milton,  rising  on  an  angel's  wing  to 
heaven,  and,  like  the  bird  of  morn,  soaring  out  of  sight  amidst 
the  music  of  his  grateful  piety.  I  err  with  Newton,  whose  star- 
lit spirit  shot  across  the  darkness  of  the  sphere  too  soon  to 
reascend  to  the  home  of  his  nativity.  \\  ith  men  like  these,  my 
Lord,  I  shall  remain  in  error,  nor  shall  I  desert  these  errors 
for  the  drunken  bed  of  a  Paine,  or  the  delirious  warwhoop 
of  the  surviving  friends  who  would  erect  his  altar  upon  the 
ruins  of  society.  In  my  opinion,  it  is  difficult  to  say  whether 
their  tenets  are  more  ludicrous  or  more  detestable.  They  will 
not  obey  the  king,  the  prince,  the  parliament,  nor  the  constitu- 
tion, but  they  will  obey  anarchy.  They  will  not  believe  in  the 
prophets,  in  Moses,  in  the  apostles,  in  Christ,  but  they  believe 
in  Tom   Paine. 


[May  21,  1898.I 

CHAXGIXG    THE    XARRATR^E. 

I  think  that  we  can  not  insist  too  earnestly  that  breth- 
ren who  hold  rationalistic  views  of  the  Scriptures  should 
avoid  intruding  them  upon  the  children  in  the  Sunday- 
schools  and  the  Endeavor  societies.  I  have  already  re- 
monstrated with  our  young-  brother,  H.  L.  Willett,  on 
this  kind  of  intrusion,   and  his  essay   in   the   Christian- 


292  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Evangelist  on  the  lesson  for  May  19  gives  me  another 
occasion.  Here  is  what  he  says  about  the  account  of  the 
ass  which  Jesus  rode  during  his  pubhc  entry  into  Jeru- 
salem : 

Mark  has  prepared  the  oldest  account,  emiwdying  the  recol- 
lections of  Peter,  in  which  only  one  beast  is  mentioned.  He  is 
followed  by  Luke,  and  John  so  describes  the  event.  But  the 
first  Gospel  changes  the  narrative  to  fit  the  words  of  the  Mes- 
sianic passage  in  Zechariah,  and  speaks  of  two  animals — an  ass 
and  its  colt — on  both  of  which  the  disciples  placed  their  gar- 
ments, and  both  of  which  were  used  by  Jesus  in  the  course  of 
his  journey. 

To  say  nothing  of  the  assertion  that  Mark  "has  pre- 
pared the  oldest  account,"  which  is  only  the  latest  fad  of 
criticism  on  "the  synoptic  problem,"  we  have  it  here 
asserted  that  "the  first  Gospel  changes  the  narrative." 
How  does  Professor  Willett  know  this?  How  does  he 
know  that  the  dam  was  not  brought  as  well  as  the  colt? 
Does  the  fact  that  the  other  writers  say  that  the  colt  was 
brought,  prove  that  the  dam  was  not  brought,  and  that 
Matthew  has  changed  the  narrative  when  he  says  she 
was?  It  would  be  nonsense  to  so  afifirm,  yet  there  is  no 
other  ground  that  I  can  see  for  the  charge. 

But  the  worst  part  of  this  charge  is  the  motive 
assigned  for  the  change.  It  was  a  dishonest  motive.  He 
"changes  the  narrative  to  fit  the  words  of  the  Messianic 
passage  in  Zechariah."  The  facts  as  they  occurred  did 
not  fit  the  words  of  the  prophet,  and  Matthew  changed 
the  facts  to  make  them  fit.  What  kind  of  men  were  the 
writers  of  these  Gospels  in  the  estimation  of  Professor 
Willett?  It  would  be  well  for  him  to  break  his  studied 
silence,  and  answer  some  of  these  questions. 

But  this  charge  against  the  first  Gospel  carries  with 
it  a  palpable  misunderstanding  of  that  Gospel's  narrative. 
Professor  Willett  says  that  the  author  "speaks  of  two 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  293 

animals — an  ass  and  its  colt — on  both  of  which  the  dis- 
ciples placed  their  garments,  and  both  of  which  were 
used  by  Jesus  in  the  course  of  his  journey."  It  is  true 
that  the  disciples,  before  they  knew  which  animal  Jesus 
was  going  to  ride,  threw  garments  over  both  of  them; 
but  who  told  the  Professor  that  Jesus  rode  both  of  them? 
And  how  did  he  ride  them  ?  W^as  he  a  circus  performer, 
riding  two  animals  at  once?  Or  did  he  ride  one  for  a 
time  and  then  mount  the  other?  Is  it  possible  that  the 
words,  "riding  on  an  ass  and  a  colt,  the  foal  of  an  ass," 
are  construed  to  mean  that  he  rode  both  animals?  If  so, 
why  so?  When  a  man  rides  a  foal  of  an  ass,  he  rides  an 
ass.  The  prophet  said  first  that  he  should  ride  an  ass ; 
and  then  to  show  what  kind  of  an  ass,  he  adds,  a  colt,  the 
foal  of  an  ass.  \\'hy,  then,  should  it  be  thought  that 
Jesus  had  to  ride  two  asses  to  make  out  the  case  ? 

Having  thus  laid  Matthew  out  as  a  perverter  of 
Scriptures,  our  commentator  next  turns  his  weapons  on 
John.  Speaking  of  the  expulsion  of  traders  from  the 
temple,  as  recorded  by  Matthew,  he  says :  "The  cleansing 
of  the  temple  recorded  by  John  2:  13-17  is  almost  cer- 
tainly to  be  identified  with  this,  and  is  misplaced  where 
it  now  stands  at  the  beginning  of  Jesus'  ministry."  So, 
then,  if  Matthew  changed  certain  facts  to  make  them  fit 
a  prediction,  John  is  guilty  of  misplacing  a  fact  by  the 
space  of  two  whole  years,  for  John  misplaces  this  fact  at 
the  first  Passover  which  Jesus  attended,  while  Matthew 
correctly  places  it  two  years  later.  Did  John,  who  was 
certainly  present,  make  such  a  blunder  as  this,  or  has 
Professor  Willett,  who  knows  nothing  about  it  except 
what  Alatthew  and  John  have  told  him,  committed  the 
blunder  of  attempting  to  correct  an  apostle?  As  I  was 
not  there,  I  am  simple  enough  to  believe  both  of  these 
eye-witnesses.     r)ecause  John  says  that  he  cast  out  cer- 


294  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

tain  traders  at  his  first  visit,  I  believe  that  he  did;  and 
because  Matthew  says  he  cast  out  a  set  of  the  same  kind 
of  intruders  at  his  last  visit,  I  believe  that  he  did.  In 
other  words,  I  believe  that  these  Gospel  writers  tell  the 
truth ;  that  they  neither  change  facts  to  make  them  fit 
predictions  nor  commit  blunders  by  misplacing  facts. 
Bro.  Willett  believes  otherwise,  or  else  he  misrepresents 
himself.  Unfortunately,  he  is  permitting  blind  guides  to 
lead  him. 


[May  28,  1898.] 

A   CHRONOLOGICAL    PUZZLE. 

B.  F.  Bonnell,  of  Geyserville,  Cal.,  has  encountered 
a  little  chronological  puzzle  in  Genesis  which  very  fre- 
quently calls  careful  Bible  readers  to  a  halt.  He  presents 
it  very  compactly  in  the  following  lines : 

According  to  Gen.  5  :  32,  Noah  was  five  hundred  years  old 
when  Shem  was  born.  According  to  7:  11-13,  he  was  six  hun- 
dred when  he  entered  the  ark.  According  to  11  :  10,  Shem  was 
one  hundred  when  Arphaxad  was  born.  How,  then,  could 
Arphaxad  have  been  born,  as  stated  in  11  :  10,  two  years  after 
the  flood? 

Again  : 

Noah  was  six  hundred  years  old  (Gen.  7:11-13)  when  he 
entered  the  ark.  He  lived,  according  to  9 :  28,  350  years  after 
the  flood.  The  flood,  according  to  7:11  and  8:14,  lasted  one 
year  and  ten  days.  How  could  Noah,  as  stated  in  9 :  29,  be  950 
years  old  at  the  tirr^  of  his  death? 

hi  your  critical  review  of  Harper's  lectures,  March  2,  1895, 
you  say,  "Shem's  real  age  at  the  time  of  the  flood  was  ninety- 
eight  years,"  but  you  do  not  say  how  you  reached  that  con- 
clusion. 

In  attempting  an  explanation,  let  us  begin  at  the  be- 
ginning of  this  list  of  figures. 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  295 

First,  then,  it  is  not  correct  to  say  that,  "according  to 
Gen.  5  :  ^2,  Xoah  was  five  hundred  years  old  when  Shem 
was  born."  The  text  does  not  say  so.  It  says  this:  "And 
Xoah  was  live  hundred  years  old:  and  Xoah  begat  Shem, 
Ham  and  Japheth."  Here  are  two  distinct  facts  asserted, 
not  connected  by  an  adverb  of  time  to  show  that  they 
were  simultaneous.  H  they  were  simultaneous,  not- 
withstanding- the  omission  of  the  adverb,  then  Shem, 
Ham  and  Japheth  were  triplets.  But  we  know  that  they 
were  not  triplets,  because  Ham,  in  9 :  24,  is  called  Noah's 
"youngest  son,"  which  he  could  not  be  if  all  three  were 
born  at  one  birth.  \Miat  is  the  meaning,  then,  of  5:  32? 
It  means,  that  at  the  close  of  the  period  contemplated  in 
the  genealogy  of  which  it  is  the  closing  verse,  Xoah  was 
five  hundred  years  old  :  and  that,  either  earlier  or  later, 
the  text  does  not  determine  which,  Xoah  begat  these 
three  sons. 

If  now  we  wish  to  ascertain  the  exact  time  when 
Shem  was  born,  the  key  is  given  us  in  the  statement  that 
'*Shem  was  one  hundred  years  old,  an\l  begat  Arphaxad 
two  years  after  the  flood"  (9:10).  But  if  Shem  was  one 
hundred  years  old  two  years  after  the  flood,  he  was 
ninety-eight  at  the  time  of  the  flood.  And  as  he  was 
ninety-eight  at  the  time  of  the  flood,  when  his  father  was 
six  hundred,  he  was  born  when  his  father  was  five  hun- 
dred and  two.  Wq  have  no  figures  by  which  to  deter- 
mine the  exact  ages  of  his  two  brothers  :  but  it  is  clear 
from  the  fact  of  Ham  being  the  youngest,  that  he  was 
born  still  later. 

Xow,  we  turn  to  the  first  statements  about  the  age 
of  Xoah.  The  text  does  not  say,  with  Bro.  Bonnell,  that 
**X'oah  was  six  hundred  years  old  when  he  entered  the 
ark."  The  statement  is  that  "Xoah  was  six  hundred 
years  old  when  the  flood  of  waters  was  upon  the  earth," 


296  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

and  this  means,  not  merely  when  the  flood  began,  but 
during  nearly  the  whole  continuance  of  the  flood.  By 
Hebrew  custom  a  man  would  be  six  hundred  years  old 
all  the  time  from  the  day  he  entered  his  six  hundredth 
year  till  the  day  he  reached  his  six  hundred  and  first 
year;  and  this  custom  grew  out  of  their  other  custom 
of  counting  any  part  of  a  year  at  the  close  of  a  series 
as  if  it  were  a  whole  year.  Our  own  custom  is  similar, 
but  not  the  same.  When  a  man  asks  me  now,  "What 
is  your  age  ?"  I  answer  I  am  sixty-nine ;  and  I  will  con- 
tinue to  answer  thus  till  I  become  seventy.  If  I  should 
live  to  Noah's  age  I  would  not  call  myself  six  hundred 
till  I  had  completed  my  six  hundredth  year ;  but  he  called 
himself  six  hundred  when  he  began  that  year.  It  is  in 
this  sense  then  that  Noah  was  six  hundred  years  old 
when  the  flood  was  on  the  earth.  But  if  we  inquire  his 
exact  age  when  the  flood  began,  it  is  given  in  7:11, 
which  says:  "In  the  six  hundredth  year  of  Noah's  life, 
in  the  second  month,  on  the  seventeenth  day  of  the 
month,  in  the  same  day  were  all  the  fountains  of  the 
great  deep  broken  up,  and  the  windows  of  the  heaven 
were  opened.  And  the  rain  was  upon  the  earth  forty 
days  and  forty  nights."  Noah's  age,  then,  was  five  hun- 
dred and  ninety-nine  years,  one  month  and  seventeen 
days.  Nothing  could  be  more  exact  than  this ;  and  this 
exactness  when  exactness  was  called  for,  combined  with 
a  peculiar  Semitic  inexactness  when  exactness  was  not 
called  for,  is  no  mean  evidence  that  the  writer  knew 
perfectly  the  facts  in  the  case  and  described  them  pre- 
cisely as  they  were. 

We  are  now  ready  to  understand  the  statement  about 
Noah's  entire  age.  When  he  came  out  of  the  ark  his 
age  was  six  hundred  years,  one  month  and  twenty-seven 
days  (9:  14).     If  he  lived  through  the  rest  of  that  year. 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  297 

and  three  hundred  and  forty-nine  years  longer,  he  was 
nine  hundred  and  fifty  when  he  died;  for  the  Hebrews 
counted  a  piece  of  a  year  at  the  beginning  of  a  series,  as 
well  as  at  the  end  of  it,  as  if  it  were  a  whole  year. 
According  to  this  method  of  counting,  if  he  lived  to 
any  point  within  the  three  hundred  and  forty-ninth  year 
afterward,  he  would  still  be  said  to  have  lived,  after  the 
flood,  three  hundred  and  fifty  years,  and  his  whole  life, 
on  either  supposition,  was  nine  hundred  and  fifty. 

In  conclusion  I  will  remark,  that  young  people  and 
older  brethren,  who  have  not  had  opportunity  to  familiar- 
ize themselves  with  the  peculiarities  of  early  Hebrew 
style,  may  be  excused  for  becoming  confused  on  some 
points  of  Biblical  chronology ;  but  those  trained  scholars 
who  take  advantage  of  these  peculiarities  to  make  out  a 
series  of  contradictions,  and  thus  to  assail  the  credibility 
of  the  sacred  narratives,  are  without  excuse,  and  must 
be  held  accountable  for  the  evil  which  they  are  doing. 


[June  4,   1898.] 

ABBOTTlS:^rS. 

The  Outlook  continues  to  teem  with  eccentric  sayings 
from  its  eccentric  editor-in-chief.  In  the  number  for 
May  14,  I  find  two  questions  and  answers,  which  are 
fair  specimens : 

"i.  What  did  Jesus  teach  about  'signs  and  miracles'?" 
He  taught  that  they  had  a  certain  evidential  signif- 
icance, inferior  to  that  given  by  his  own  personality  and 
character,  and,  therefore,  to  be  presented  to  the  spiritually 
undeveloped  whom  the  higher  evidences  did  not  impress 
(Luke  11:29:  John  4:48:  10:38;  14:11).  Here  it  is 
affirmed  that  Jesus  taught  two  things :  First,  that  the 
evidential  value  of  miracles  was  "inferior  to  that  s^iven 


298  SHORT  ESSAYS   IN 

by  his  own  personality  ana  character ;"  and  second,  that 
this  inferior  evidence  was  to  be  presented  "to  the  spirit- 
ually undeveloped  whom  the  higher  evidence  did  not 
impress."  Four  passages  are  cited  to  prove  that  he 
taught  this — just  four  times  are  many  as  are  necessary 
if  any  one  of  them  contains  this  teaching.  Let  us  look 
at  them,  instead  of  being  content  with  the  figures  which 
represent  them.  In  the  first  it  is  said :  "And  when  the 
multitudes  were  gathering  unto  him,  he  began  to  say, 
This  generation  is  an  evil  generation ;  it  seeketh  after  a 
sign ;  and  there  shall  no  sign  be  given  to  it  but  the  sign 
of  Jonah."  The  hearers  in  this  instance  are  some  of 
the  "spiritually  undeveloped ;"  but  instead  of  presenting 
them  with  some  of  the  inferior  evidence,  Jesus  refuses 
to  give  them  the  sign  which  they  demand.  This  is  a 
curious  way  of  teaching  what  Mr.  Abbott  says  he  does, 
but  perhaps  he  teaches  it  in  the  next  passage,  which 
reads  thus :  "Jesus,  therefore,  said  unto  him  [the  noble- 
man], Except  ye  see  signs  and  wonders,  ye  will  in  no 
wise  believe."  But  this  remark,  instead  of  beins:  ad- 
dressed  to  a  man  "spiritually  undeveloped,"  was  ad- 
dressed to  one  who,  as  soon  as  he  heard  what  Jesus  said, 
believed  that  his  sick  son,  for  whom  he  made  request, 
and  who  was  more  than  twenty  miles  away,  was  healed 
(see  John  4:49,  50).  Neither  the  person  nor  the  facts 
in  this  case  suit  the  editor's  proposition.  The  third 
reads  thus:  "If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father,  believe 
me  not;  but  if  I  do  them,  though  ye  believe  not  me, 
believe  the  works,  that  ye  may  know  and  understand 
that  the  Father  is  in  me  and  I  in  the  Father."  Here  the 
Lord  assigns  such  evidential  force  to  his  miracles  as  to 
say  that  his  hearers  need  not  believe  him  at  all  unless 
he  performs  them  ;  and  by  saying,  "though  ye  believe 
not  me,  believe  the  works,"  he  gives  the  superior  place  to 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  299 

his  works.  He  teaches  the  reverse  of  the  proposition  to 
prove  which  the  passage  is  cited.  If  Dr.  Abbott  were 
trying"  to  prove  by  the  Scriptures  that  black  is  white,  he 
would  hunt  for  a  few  passages  in  which  it  is  said  that 
black  is  not  white. 

The  fourth  passage  suits  the  proposition  no  better. 
It  says:  "Believe  me  that  I  am  in  the  Father  and  the 
Father  in  me ;  or  else  believe  me  for  the  very  work's 
sake."  Here  again  it  is  implied  that  his  works  furnished 
more  conclusive  evidence  than  his  word.  And  this  agrees 
with  what  he  says  in  another  place:  "If  I  bear  witness 
of  myself,  my  witness  is  not  true"  (/.  c,  valid).  And 
just  below  he  adds :  "The  w^orks  which  the  Father  hath 
given  me  to  accomplish,  the  very  works  that  I  do  bear 
w^itness   of  me,   that  the   Father   hath   sent   me"    (John 

5:30-36). 

I  wonder  why,  in  answering  the  query.  Dr.  Abbott 
did  not  quote  or  cite  this  passage:  "If  I  had  not  done 
among  them  the  works  which  none  other  did,  they  had 
not  had  sin  ;  but  now  they  have  both  seen  and  hated  both 
me  and  my  Father"  (John  15:24).  How  would  they 
have  been  without  sin  in  rejecting  him,  had  he  not  done 
the  works  which  he  did?  Only  because  his  word  and 
person  without  his  miracles  would  have  been  insufficient 
to  make  unbelief  a  sin.  xA.nd  why  did  not  our  sage  editor 
quote  this  passage :  "Many  other  signs  truly  did  Jesus 
in  the  presence  of  his  disciples,  which  are  not  Vv^itten  in 
this  book :  but  these  are  written  that  ye  may  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  believing 
ye  may  have  life  in  his  name"?  When  a  man  has  a  bad 
answer  for  a  question,  he  is  apt  to  quote  in  support  of 
it  the  passages  which  have  the  least  bearing  upon  it ;  or, 
rather,  to  cite  them  without  quoting  them. 

In  the   same  issue  the  editor  is  asked  bv  a  corre- 


300  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

spondent:  "What  is  the  rationale  of  the  miracle?"     And 
this  is  his  reply : 

The  exceptional  powers  of  various  sorts  that  are  manifested 
by  some  exceptionally  constituted  persons  suggest  the  true 
rationale  of  the  subject.  Miracle,  or  what  may  conventionally 
be  called  so,  is  the  peculiar  outcome  of  peculiarly  endowed 
life.  Life  is  the  mother  of  all  wonders.  On  the  degree  and 
reach  of  life,  on  its  intensity  and  range  of  power,  it  will  depend 
whether  its  natural  working  will  be  restricted  to,  or  will  rise 
above,  the  plane  of  the  common  and  the  familiar.  In  virtue  of 
a  life  of  peculiar  intensity  and  extraordinary  range,  what  was 
supernatural  to  common  men  was  natural  to  Jesus. 

I  hope  that  the  querist  tmderstood  all  this  ;  but  it  is 
too  fogg-y  for  me.  All  that  I  can  get  out  of  it  is,  that 
''miracle,  or  w^hat  may  be  conventionally  called  so,"  was 
natural  to  Jesus.  I  suppose,  then,  that  it  was  natural 
to  Peter,  Paul,  Philip,  Judas  Iscariot,  and  the  many 
others  who  wrought  miracles ;  and  that  all  that  miracles 
prove  is  the  "peculiar  intensity  and  extraordinary  range 
of  the  life"  of  those  who  wrought  them. 

To  another  query,  "Please  tell  us  whether  you  believe 
in  a  personal  second  coming,"  the  editor  answers  in 
these  words : 

Yes,  a  personal  coming,  not  in  form,  however,  but  in  power  j 
not  in   show.  Init  in   spirit;   and  that  this   coming  in   the  power, 
of  the  Spirit  is  now  in  progress  from  more  to  more  of  efficiency, 
until  the  Spirit  of  Christ  shall  have  thoroughly  regenerated  the 
present  world. 

How  delightfully  this  harmonizes  with  Christ's  own 
words  when  he  says :  "But  when  the  Son  of  man  shall 
come  in  his  glory,  and  all  the  angels  with  him,  then  shall 
he  sit  on  the  throne  of  his  glory,  and  before  him  shall 
be  gathered  all  the  nations,  and  he  shall  separate  them 
one  from  another,  as  the  shepherd  separateth  the  sheep 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  301 

irom  the  goats :  and  he  shall  set  the  sheep  on  his  right 
hand,  but  the  goats  on  the  left." 

Dr.  Abbott  ought  to  write  out  a  new  account  of  the 
words  and  works  of  Jesus ;  for  he  certainly  believes  very 
little  of  the  account  given  in  our  four  Gospels. 


[June  II,  1898.] 

THE   DEBT   ACKXOWEDGED. 

Any  system  of  thought  which  owes  its  origin  to  the 
enemies  of  the  Bible  must  necessarily  be  regarded  with 
suspicion  by  the  Bible's  friends.  This  consideration 
alone  ought  to  make  every  Christian  look  with  suspicion 
on  the  new  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch;  for  it  is  well 
known  that  \\\  Robertson  Smith  first  put  it  into  an  Eng- 
lish dress,  and  he  acknowledged  his  indebtedness  for  it 
to  Wellhausen.  He  does  this  in  the  preface  to  his 
^'Prophets  of  Israel,"  page   13,  in  the  following  words: 

Taken  as  a  whole,  the  writings  of  Wellhausen  are  the  most 
notable  contribution  to  the  historical  study  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment since  the  great  work  of  Ewald,  and  almost  every  part  of 
the  present  lectures  owes  something  to  them. 

Now,  it  is  well  known  to  every  man  who  has  read 
anything  from  the  pen  of  Wellhausen,  that  he  is  an 
infidel ;  that  is,  that  he  denies  the  supernatural  in  the 
narratives  of  the  Bible.  H  any  of  my  readers  are  unac- 
quairited  with  his  writings,  they  have  but  to  read  a  few  of 
his  essays  in  the  Encyclopedia  Brittanica  to  know  this  for 
themselves.  Mr.  Smith  has  especial  reference  in  the  sen- 
tence just  quoted  to  stich  an  article.     He  says: 

The  very  remarkable  article,  "Israel,"  in  the  new  edition  of 
the  Encyclopedia  Britannica.  contains  most  important  contri- 
butions to  prophetic  theology,  my  obligations  to  which  I  am  the 
more   anxious    to    acknowledge    because    other    features    in    the 


302  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

writings   of    this    scholar   have    received    too    exclusive   attention 
from  critics. 

Robertson  Smith  edited  this  new  edition  of  the 
Brittanica ;  he  was  himself  responsible  for  inviting  Well- 
hausen  to  write  this  and  other  articles.  There  are  so 
many  articles  of  the  kind  in  this  new  edition,  that  the 
publishers  were  compelled  by  public  opinion  in  Great 
Britain  to  publish  a  supplemental  volume,  in  which  all 
the  subjects  which  they  had  treated  are  rediscussed  by 
believing  writers.  No  one,  therefore,  should  purchase 
the  Encyclopedia  without  including  this  supplemental 
volume,  so  that  he  can  read  both  sides  of  these  critical 
questions.  These  considerations  make  it  plain  that  the 
words  of  Jesus,  slightly  changed,  can  be  applied  to  our 
English  and  American  critics  of  the  new  school: 

Ye  are  of  your  father  Wellhausen,  and  the  lusts  of  your 
father  it  is  your  v^ill  to  do.  He  was  an  infidel  from  the  begin- 
ning, and  stood  not  in  the  truth,  because  the  truth  is  not  in 
him.     He  is  a  destructive  critic,  and  the  father  thereof. 

On  another  page  of  this  same  volume,  Robertson 
Smith,  with  a  freedom  in  handling  the  Scriptures  charac- 
teristic of  his  class,  makes  the  following  declaration: 

In  the  oldest  part  of  the  Hebrew  legislation  the  word  which 
our  version  renders  "judges"  properly  means  "God"  (Ex.  21  : 
6;  22:8);  and  to  bring  a  case  before  God  means  to  bring  it 
to  the  sanctuary.  It  was  at  the  doorpost  of  the  sanctuary  that 
the  symbolic  action  was  performed  by  which  a  Hebrew  man 
might  voluntarily  accept  a  lifelong  service  (p.  100). 

The  author  here  assumes  that  the  only  judges  were 
those  at  the  sanctuary,  whereas  judges  were  appointed 
in  every  city.  He  assumes,  further,  that  the  door-post  at 
which  the  ear  of  the  voluntary  bondsman  was  bored, 
was  the  door  of  the  sanctuary,  whereas  there  is  nothing 
said  about  a  sanctuary  in  the  context  of  either  passage. 
He   again   assumes   that   boring  the  man's   ear   was   "a 


BIBLICAL   CRiriCTSM  303 

symbolic  action,"  whereas  it  was  intended  merely  as  a 
mark  b}'  which  all  might  know  that  the  owner  of  the 
bondman  was  not  keeping-  him  contrary  to  the  law.  And 
finally,  the  author  cuts  his  own  critical  throat  by  assum- 
ing that  at  the  time  of  this  ''oldest  part  of  Hebrew  legis- 
lation," there  was  ''a  sanctuary,"  whereas,  according  to 
the  critical  theory,  the  sanctuary  was  an  invention  of  a 
later  age.  If  a  man  follows  a  crooked  path,  he  is  very 
apt  to  cross  his  own  track  without  knowing  it ;  and  if  he 
is  not  led  by  the  Bible,  he  is  very  apt  to  contradict  the 
Bible. 


[July  30,   1898.] 

COXTRADICTIOXS. 

In  the  testimony  of  witnesses  before  a  court,  nothing 
is  more  common  than  for  apparent  contradictions  to  arise 
between  credible  witnesses  or  between  different  state- 
ments of  the  same  witness.  In  all  such  cases,  it  is  con- 
sidered entirely  logical  and  legitimate  for  counsel  to 
show  that  on  some  reasonable  hypothesis  the  statements 
can  be  harmonized.  So  in  regard  to  apparently  incon- 
sistent statements  in  written  documents.  But  when  we 
come  to  the  Bible,  our  modern  critics  of  the  German  type 
forbid  us  to  do  this.  Nothing  is  weaker  or  more  con- 
temptible in  their  eyes  than  the  work  of  ''the  harmon- 
izers"  or  the  "apologists."  They  insist  that  apparent 
contradictions  shall  be  regarded  as  real  ones,  and  they 
hold  it  up  as  a  cowardly  subterfuge  to  attempt  a  recon- 
ciliation. They  will  not  allow  for  the  Bible  that  which 
their  common  sense  compels  them  to  allow  for  any  other 
written  document ;  and  yet  they  loudly  proclaim  that  the 
Bible  must  be  interpreted  precisely  as  other  books  are. 
In  writing  about  the  Bible  they  seem  te  be  glad  when 


304  SHORT  ESSAYS   IN 

they  can  find  two  statements  which  they  can  declare  con- 
tradictory. They  think  it  honest  and  candid  to  admit 
contradictions,  and  they  take  so  much  pleasure  in  it  that 
they  sometimes  manufacture  contradictions  where  another 
man  of  sense  can  see  none. 

A  striking-  instance  of  this  habit  came  under  my  eye 
recently  in  reading  Prof.  H.  E.  Ryle's  commentary  on 
Nehemiah,  written  for  the  ''Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools 
and  Colleges."     Commenting  on  Neh,  i :  i,  he  says: 

In  chapter  2 :  i  we  find  that  the  events  described  in  the  be- 
ginning of  that  chapter  are  said  to  have  taken  place  in  the 
month  of  Nisan,  in  the  "twentieth  year  of  King  Artaxerxes." 
Now,  Nisan  is  the  first  month,  Chisleu  the  ninth  month  in  the 
year.  How,  then,  comes  it  that  in  this  verse  the  events  of  the 
ninth  month  seem  to  precede  those  of  the  first  month,  in  the 
twentieth  year  of  Artaxerxes? 

He  gives  two  or  three  explanations  that  have  been 
advanced,  and  then  adds : 

It  is  better  to  acknowledge  that  we  have  here  a  contradiction 
and  to  suppose  that  a  mistake  has  been  made  either  by  the  com- 
piler or  by  a  scribe  who  was  anxious  that  the  extract  from 
Nehemiah's  writings  should  open  with  the  mention  of  a  date, 
and  inserted,  from  chapter  2:  i,  the  year  of  the  king's  reign,  not 
perceiving  the  difficulty  to  which  it  would  give  rise.  The  omis- 
sion of  the  king's  name  is  an  additional  reason  for  suspecting 
an  error  in  the  text. 

It  is  passing  strange  to  me  that  a  grave  and  learned 
commentator  should  be  puzzled  by  the  fact  that  the  ninth 
calendar  month  in  one  year,  and  the  first  in  the  next 
year,  should  both  fall  in  the  twentieth  year  of  any  king's 
reign.  It  could  not  be  otherwise,  unless  his  twentieth 
year  began  on  a  month  lying  between  these  tWo.  If  the 
reign  began  on  the  tenth,  the  eleventh  or  the  twelfth 
month,  its  first  year  would  not  include  the  ninth  month 
of  the  same  year,  but  it  would  include  the  first  month 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  305 

of  the  next  year.  But  if  it  began  on  the  eighth  month, 
or  any  other  back  to  the  second,  it  would  inckide  the 
ninth  month  of  that  year  and  the  first  of  the  next  year. 
If  Professor  Ryle  had  stopped  to  think  of  his  own 
professorship,  he  would  have  been  saved  from  making 
this  charge  against  Xehemiah :  for  if  his  professorship 
began,  as  it  most  probably  did,  the  first  of  September, 
the  first  year  of  it  included  the  ninth  month  of  that 
year,  which  was  September,  and  the  first  month,  Januar}', 
of  the  next  year.  The  same  is  true  of  his  twentieth  year, 
and  of  every  other  year  that  his  professorship  continues. 
And  not  only  would  the  months  September  and  January 
be  thus  included,  but  so  would  the  months  Chisleu  and 
Nisan  of  the  Jew^ish  calendar. 

But  the  most  surprising  thing  in  Professor  Ryle  is, 
that  he  really  states  this  explanation  of  what  he  so 
strangely  considers  a  difficulty,  and  states  it  to  reject  it. 
He  says : 

Another  explanation  has  been  given,  that  the  years  of 
Artaxerxes'  reign  were  not  reckoned  as  calendar  years  from 
the  month  of  Xisan,  but  from  the  month  in  which  he  ascended 
the  throne.  If.  therefore,  his  reign  began  in  any  one  of  the 
months  between  Xisan  and  Chisleu,  Chisleu  would  precede  Xisan 
in  the  year  thus  calculated.  But  for  this  view  there  is  no  evi- 
dence from  other  sources. 

Why  need  evidence  from  other  sources?  When  in 
the  history  of  the  world  was  a  king's  reign  counted  from 
any  other  month  than  the  one  in  which  he  began  to 
reign?  It  would  be  just  as  sensible  to  count  a  man's 
birth  from  January  when  he  was  born  in  May  or  June. 
It  is  a  simple  matter  of  course  that  if  Artaxerxes  began 
his  reign  in  any  month  between  the  first  and  the  ninth, 
the  ninth  month  of  that  year  and  the  first  of  the  next 
were  included  in  every  full  year  that  he  reigned  :  and  the 
statement  of  Professor  Rvle,  that  it  is  better  to  admit 


3o6  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

here  a  contradiction,  is  to  assume  that  contradictions  in 
the  Bible  are  better  than  harmony,  and  so  much  better 
that  commentators  may  properly  manufacture  a  few 
where  none  exist. 


[Aug.  20,  1898.] 

SINGULAR    AND    PLURAL. 

To  persons  who  obtain  a  very  slight  knowledge  of 
Greek  or  Hebrew,  many  of  the  idioms  of  these  languages 
are  a  constant  puzzle.  One  of  the  first  things  to  learn 
about  a  foreign  tongue,  whether  ancient  or  modern,  is 
its  distinctive  differences,  or  rather  the  many  distinctive 
differences,  from  our  own.  Every  language  has  some 
peculiarities,  called  idioms,  and  the  reader  who,  regard- 
less of  these,  tries  to  read  them  as  if  written  in  his  own 
tongue,  will  be  in  constant  confusion.  Now,  one  of  the 
idioms  of  the  Hebrew,  an  idiom  which  clings  to  Hebrew 
writers  even  when  they  are  writing  in  other  tongues,  is  a 
use  of  the  plural  number  quite  different  from  our  own. 
It  is  known  to  most  Bible  readers,  for  instance,  that  the 
Hebrew  name  translated  God  is  plural  in  form,  though 
when  applied  to  the  true  God  it  always  has  the  force  of 
the  singular.  So  the  word  translated  week  has  the  plural 
form  with  the  idea  of  a  unit.  This  fact  enables  us  to 
answer  the  following  query :  "Does  the  w^ord  'week,'  in 
Acts  20 :  7,  come  from  a  singular  or  a  plural  word  in 
the  Greek?  If  plural,  why  is  it  translated  singular?"  It 
is  plural ;  but  it  is  translated  by  a  word  in  the  singular 
because  it  means  precisely  what  we  do  by  the  word 
"week."  Everywhere  that  the  word  "week"  occurs  in 
our  English  New  Testament,  the  same  is  true.  In  every 
such  instance  the  word  is  preceded  by  the  word  "day," 
expressed  or   understood   in   the   Greek,    and   the   word 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  307 

"day"  is  accompanied  by  a  numeral.  It  so  happens  in 
the  New  Testament  that  the  numeral  is  in  every  instance 
first ;  and  in  all  these  instances  the  numeral  is  expressed, 
and  the  word  "day"  left  to  be  understood. 

I  remember  that  this  last  circumstance  once  led  a 
very  acute  friend  of  mine,  who  knew  just  a  little  of 
Greek,  into  a  singular  notion  about  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus.  He  observed  that  in  the  accounts  of  the  resur- 
rection in  all  four  of  the  Gospels  the  word  rendered 
"week"  is  sabbatoon,  the  word  for  Sabbath  in  the  geni- 
tive plural,  and  he  thought  it  ought  to  be  rendered  Sab- 
baths. Then,  from  the  clause,  "on  the  first  of  the  sab- 
baths," he  wondered  if  Jesus,  after  all,  did  not  rise  on 
the  Sabbath  instead  of  Sunday.  Just  a  little  more  knowl- 
edge of  Greek  would  have  taught  him  that  Greek 
numerals,  and  all  Greek  adjectives,  have  gender  agree- 
ing with  that  of  the  nouns  to  which  they  belong,  and  that 
the  word  "first"  is*  in  the  feminine  gender,  agreeing  with 
day  understood,  while  the  word  for  Sabbath  (sabbatoon) 
is  neuter.  The  meaning  could  not  therefore  be,  as  he 
thought,  the  first  Sabbath  of  the  Sabbaths,  but  the  first 
day  of  the  week.  iMoreover,  "the  first  of  the  Sabbaths" 
would  convey  no  meaning  unless  it  referred  to  a  series  of 
Sabbaths  like  that  between  the  Passover  and  Pentecost, 
and  to  this  the  context  makes  no  allusion. 

The  propriety  of  using  a  plural  number  in  this  in- 
stance is  apparent  if  we  reflect  that  the  conception  of  a 
week  has  in  it  a  plural  idea,  that  of  a  series  of  seven 
days.  It  was  not  an  arbitrary  custom,  then,  which  led 
the  Hebrews  to  use  for  it  a  word  in  the  plural  number, 
but  it  is  rather  an  anomaly  with  us  to  use  a  vvord  in  the 
singular  number  to  represent  seven  days.  \\>  can  not 
be  too  careful  to  remember  the  differences  of  idiom  be- 
tween our  language  and  those  of  the  sacred  writers. 


3o8  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

[Sept.  3,  1898.] 
WOULD    THEY    DO    AS    WELL? 

We  are  constantly  told  by  those  who  deny  the  his- 
toricity of  many  Old  Testament  narratives  that,  on  the 
supposition  that  they  are  fictitious,  their  value  is  not 
impaired;  they  still  teach  the  same  lessons  and  with  the 
same  force.  They  are  compared  to  the  parable  of  the 
prodigal  son,  which,  it  is  said,  has  as  great  value  as  if  it 
were  a  true  story.  They  are  also  compared  to  a  certain 
class  of  novels  which  enforce  moral  lessons  with  great 
power,  though  they  are  known  to  be  fictitious.  This  is 
a  very  plausible  plea.  It  is  doubtless  believed  by  those 
who  urge  it,  and  it  is  readily  accepted  by  those  who  are 
this  way  inclined.     But  is  it  true? 

The  comparison  involves  the  assumption  that  the 
moral  force  of  a  real  example  and  an  imaginary  one  is 
the  same.  The  moral  force  of  Abraham's  example  in 
offering  Isaac  at  the  command  of  God  has  been  felt  by 
all  believers  in  all  ages.  We  are  asked  to  believe  that  it 
would  have  been  equally  effective  had  all  believers  in 
all  ages  understood  that  Abraham  never  offered  Isaac — 
that  the  story  is  a  fiction.  Let  a  man  preach  from  that 
text  a  sermon  intended  to  arouse  his  hearers  to  personal 
sacrifices  in  the  service  of  God,  closing  with  the  state- 
ment that  the  story  is  all  a  fiction,  and  see  what  effect 
his  sermon  will  have. 

The  dift'erence  in  effect  of  the  two  classes  of  narra- 
tives is  this :  That  in  moral  fiction  we  are  told  how  men 
ought  to  act,  but  in  true  narrative  we  are  told  how  they 
did  act.  The  former  lias  the  force  of  precept ;  the  latter, 
the  force  of  example.  The  hearer  or  the  reader  can 
parry  the  force  of  the  former  by  answering,  Oh,  that 
is  w^ll  enough  to  talk  about,  but  nobody  ever  acted  in 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  309 

that  way,  and  you  must  not  expect  me  to  do  it.  lUit  the 
force  of  the  latter  can  not  be  voided,  because  what  one 
man  has  done  another  may  do. 

As  to  novels,  dramas,  and  all  such  literature,  their 
moral  effects  are  grossly  exaggerated.  W'hile  they  often 
move  the  feelings  very  deeply,  they  seldom  show  fruit  in 
actual  life.  The  inveterate  novel-reader,  and  the  con- 
stant attendant  on  the  playhouse,  are  among  the  most 
selfish  beings.  They  learn  to  indulge  in  emotion  as  a 
luxury,  and  not  as  a  stimulus  to  active  benevolence.  The 
lady  who  heard  the  play  of  "The  Three  Orphans,"  which 
had  a  great  run  a  few  years  ago,  and  wept  profusely  in 
sympathy  with  the  unfortunates,  and  then,  as  she  started 
home,  spurned  from  her  presence  three  real  orphans  who 
stood  at  her  carriage  door,  is  a  fair  representative  of  the 
whole  class,  and  a  good  illustration  of  the  practical  value 
of  fiction. 

As  to  the  story  of  the  prodigal  son,  the  assumption 
that  it  is  fiction  is  without  a  shadow  of  foundation. 
Amid  the  countless  multitude  of  rich  men  with  two  sons, 
both  of  wdiom  have  acted  parts  almost  identical  with 
those  of  the  parable,  it  would  be  strange  indeed  if  none 
had  ever  done  precisely  what  the  parable  narrates.  The 
Lord's  parables  were  realities,  and  not  fictions.  Xo  man 
can  prove  of  a  single  one  of  them  that  it  had  not  actually 
transpired.  There  is  a  double  deception,  then,  when  men 
assert  that  the  narratives  of  the  Old  Testament  would  be 
just  as  effective  if  regarded  as  fictions,  and  then  appeal 
to  any  of  the  parables  as  examples  in  point.  As  well 
declare  that  a  picture  of  a  thunderstorm,  or  an  imita- 
tion of  one  by  an  orchestra,  would  as  thoroughly  purify 
the  atmosphere  as  the  storm  itself.  In  an  actual  event 
there  is  the  power  of  an  example.  In  a  fictitious  narra- 
tive there  is  only  the  power  of  a  supposed  example. 


310  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

[Oct.  15,  1898.] 

AN    OLD    PUZZLE. 

It  seems  that  the  time  will  never  come  when  men 
will  be  content  simply  to  believe  certain  incomprehensible 
statements  of  the  Bible,  and  cease  to  raise  speculative 
questions  about  them.  Here  follows  a  communication  in 
which  an  old  question  of  this  kind  is  presented,  whether 
for  the  satisfaction  of  the  writer  or  of  some  one  who 
looks  to  him  for  guidance,  I  am  not  informed: 

Dear  Bro.  McGarvey  : — Will  you  kindly  give  the  readers  of 
the  Christian  Standard,  in  the  department  of  "Biblical  Criti- 
cism," what  you  understand  to  be  the  general  belief  of  the 
Christian  church  on  the  nature  of  Christ  and  his  relation  to 
the  Father? 

Does  John  i  :  i  teach  that  Jesus  is  "the  very  and  eternal 
God"?  How  could  the  Word  be  God  and  at  the  same  time  be 
with  God? 

If  Jesus  was  not  the  one  God  of  the  Decalogue,  are  we  to 
understand  that  there  are  tzvo  Gods? 

When  Jesus  said,  "I  and  my  Father  are  one,"  did  he  mean 
to  say  that  they  were  one  in  person/  j.  w.  i. 

John  I  :  I  certainly  does  teach  that  Jesus,  in  his  pre- 
existing- state,  was  God.  It  also  teaches  that  "by  him 
were  all  things  made  that  were  made,  and  without  him 
was  not  one  thing  made  that  was  made."  As  he  did  not 
make  himself,  he  was  not  made  at  all,  but  was  eternal. 
He  was  God  then,  and  he  was  eternal ;  but  whether  he 
was  "very"  or  not  the  text  does  not  inform  us. 

To  the  question,  "How  could  the  Word  be  God,  and 
at  the  same  time  with  God?"  I  am  not  able  to  give  an 
answer;  and  if  the  question  had  been,  "How  could  God 
be  in  the  beginning?"  I  could  not  answer  that.  I  can 
not  tell  how  God  does  anything,  or  even  how  he  exists. 
I  can  as  easily  explain  how  the  Word  was  God  and  yet 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  311 

with  God,  as  I  can  explain  how  God  himself  was  there. 
When  I  am  told  on  competent  authority  anything  about 
an  incomprehensible  being,  I  can  believe  it ;  but  from  the 
very  fact  that  he  is  incomprehensible  I  shall  be  forever 
unable  to  explain  it. 

To  the  question,  "If  Jesus  was  not  the  one  God  of  the 
Decalogue,  are  we  to  understand  there  are  two  Gods?"  I 
can  unhesitatingly  answer.  No.  If  he  was  in  the  begin- 
ning with  God,  and  was  God,  as  John  asserts,  there  was 
and  is  only  one  God.  And  that  there  is  only  one  God  is 
a  fundamental  doctrine  of  both  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  New. 

When  Jesus  said,  'T  and  my  Father  are  one,"  did  he 
mean  to  say  that  they  were  one  in  person?  No.  Jesus, 
as  a  person,  was  then  living  in  the  flesh  among  men,  and 
offering  prayers  to  his  Father  in  heaven.  They  were  one 
in  some  other  sense  than  in  person,  and  if  we  never  find 
out  exactly  what  that  other  sense  is,  I  don't  think  it  will 
hurt  us. 

I  am  not  sure  that  I  have  given  these  answers  pre- 
cisely according  to  the  wish  of  the  querist ;  for  he  asked 
me  for  "the  general  belief  of  the  Christian  churcli''  on 
the  subject.  I  prefer,  in  all  such  matters,  to  tell  what 
the  general  belief  of  the  Christian  church  ought  to  be, 
rather  than  what  it  is.  It  ought  to  be  what  the  Scrip- 
tures teach,,  and  I  aim  to  give  this. 


[Oct.  15.  1898.1 

"LEAD   US   NOT   INTO   TEMPTATION.'^ 

I  am  requested  by  L.  C.  W^ilson  to  reconcile  this  peti- 
tion in  the  Lord's  Prayer  with  the  statement  in  Jas.  i  : 
13,  that  God  tempts  no  man.  The  hsrmony  between  the 
two  depends  on  the  difference  between  tempting  a  man 


312  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

and  leading  hira  into  temptation.  God,  by  his  Holy 
Spirit,  led  Jesus  into  temptation,  as  it  is  said,  "Jesiis  was 
led  up  of  the  Spirit  into  the  wilderness  to  be  tempted  of 
the  devil."  The  expressed  purpose  of  the  leading  into 
the  wilderness  was  that  he  might  be  tempted.  It  was 
the  devil,  however,  and  not  God,  who  did  the  tempting. 
Now,  we  are  taught  to  pray  God  not  to  deal  with  us  as 
he  did  in  this  instance  with  his  Son  ;  for  we  are  so  weak 
that  we  should  ever  be  afraid  of  temptation,  and  should 
pray  not  to  be  led  into  it  lest  we  fall  before  it.  If  we 
thus  pray  we  may  trust  that  we  shall  not  be  led  into  such 
temptations  as  we  can  not  successfully  resist;  and  with 
this  agrees  the  promise  that  we  shall  not  be  tempted 
above  what  we  are  able  to  bear. 


[March  4,   1899.] 

A    CASE    IN    POINT. 

My  scholarly  colleague.  Professor  Deweese,  recently 
handed  me  an  extract  from  the  biography  of  Gibbon,  the 
historian,  which  most  aptly  illustrates  the  folly  of  those 
critics  who  pretend  to  distinguish  in  the  Pentateuch  and 
other  books  of  the  Bible  the  hands  of  a  variety  of  writers 
by  their  peculiarities  of  style.  Gibbon  speaks  of  having, 
in  his  early  career,  united  with  a  friend,  Deyverdun,  in 
editing  a  journal  under  the  title,  "Literary  Memoirs  of 
Great  Britain."  Writing  about  it  at  a  later  period,  he 
says:  'Tt  is  not  my  wish  to  deny  how  deeply  I  was  inter- 
ested in  the  memoirs,  of  which  I  need  not  surely  be 
ashamed;  but  at  the  distance  of  more  than  twenty  years 
it  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  ascertain  the  respective 
shares  of  the  two  associates." 

Now,  here  is  a  man  of  acknowledged  literary  genius 
who  could  not  look  through  the  pages  of  that  journal 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  313 

after  the  lapse  of  twenty  years  and  clearly  distinguish 
between  his  own  compositions  and  those  of  his  partner. 
Undoubtedly  they  differed  in  style,  but  by  these  differ- 
ences he  was  un.able  to  clearly  distinguish  between  them. 
And  now  the  question  arises,  if  this  master  of  English 
composition  could  not  distinguish  his  own  writings, 
executed  twenty  years  past  in  his  own  native  tongue, 
from  those  of  another,  how  can  German  critics,  and  their 
English  imitators,  take  up  documents  written  three  thou- 
sand years  ago,  written  in  a  dead  language,  and  written 
by  men  of  an  Oriental  race,  and  distinguish  by  peculiari- 
ties of  style  the  hands  of  four  or  five  different  unknown 
writers?  In  the  light  of  this  illustration  from  Gibbon, 
which  is  but  one  of  many  that  have  been  published  by 
scholars,  the  claim  of  these  critics  is  absurd:  and  there 
is  no  wonder  that  these  men,  with  whom  literary  criti- 
cism was  once  the  stronghold  of  their  system,  are  now 
admitting  that  it  is  their  weakest  source  of  evidence.  If 
the  rulers  of  the  British  Empire  were  to  come  out  with  a 
proclamation  announcing  that  the  British  Xavy  has  been 
found  to  be  the  weakest  of  their  national  defences,  the 
change  would  not  be  more  radical. 


[Apr.  I,  1899.] 

THAT    SEXSATIOX    IX    XEW    YORK. 

It  has  been  well  said  that  almost  any  preacher  can 
make  himself  suddenly  famous  by  announcing  something 
heretical.  Any  utterance  from  a  preacher  in  opposition 
to  established  religious  belief  is  like  a  freshly  found 
worm  in  the  barnyard  to  the  newspaper  reporters.  They 
cackle  over  it,  and  scurry  about  to  see  who  will  get  hold 
of  it  first.  It  goes  all  over  the  country  on  the  wires,  and 
the  Rev.  (  ?)  author  of  it  is  known  at  breakfast  the  next 


314  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

morning  from  sea  to  sea.  The  profoundest  and  most 
convincing  sermon  may  be  preached  in  a  metropohtan 
pulpit  on  any  Sunday  to  prove  the  inerrancy  of  the  Bible, 
without  causing  a  ripple  of  excitement;  but  let  any  com- 
monplace preacher  proclaim  some  old  and  oft-refuted 
calumny  about  the  Bible,  and  all  the  telegraph  wires 
tingle  with  the  news.  All  this  is  illustrated  by  Mr.  Par- 
ker Cadman's  essay  recently  read  in  the  weekly  meeting 
of  the  Methodist  preachers  of  New  York  City.  Who,  in 
the  country  at  large,  ever  heard  before  of  Mr.  Cadman? 
He  may  be  a  very  great  man,  who  has  hitherto  hid  his 
light  under  a  bushel,  or  it  may  be  through  the  rural  igno- 
rance of  many  of  us  that  we  have  not  heard  of  him 
before;  but  one  thing  is  very  certain,  that,  if  the  news- 
papers make  any  approach  to  a  correct  report  of  his 
essay,  it  contained  nothing  but  a  rehash  of  what  Pro- 
fessor Briggs  and  others  have  been  telling  us  for  a  score 
of  years  about  errors  in  the  Bible.  The  only  thing  fresh 
about  it  is  that  the  old  song  has  now  been  caught  up  by 
a  Methodist  preacher,  and  that  at  the  close  of  his  read- 
ing his  brethren  applauded  him.  How  many  of  the  four 
hundred  present  united  in  the  applause  is  not  made  defi- 
nite. Some  of  the  papers  would  lead  us  to  suppose  that 
all  of  them  did,  while  one  or  two  that  I  have  seen  speak 
of  gray-haired  men  in  the  assembly  who  kept  silent  and 
said  nothing.  We  shall  have  to  await  the  reports  of  the 
soberer  journals,  if  they  shall  think  the  incident  worthy 
of  a  report,  before  we  can  feel  that  we  have  correct 
information  on  this  point.  In  the  meantime,  we  can  rest 
well  assured  that  the  great  American  Methodist  Church 
is  not  yet  ready  to  commit  suicide  by  discrediting  the 
Book  on  the  belief  of  the  inerrancy  of  which  it  has  built 
itself  up  into  a  mighty  power. 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  315 

[Apr.  I.  1899.] 
PROFESSOR    BRIGGS    OX    ^lETHUSELAH. 

I  have  already  called  attention  to  two  or  three  of  the 
extracts  from  Professor  Briggs'  latest  book,  which  were 
copied  into  the  Louisville  Daily  Times  of  February  6. 
In  another  he  denies  the  longevity  ascribed  to  the  ante- 
diluvians on  the  ground  ( i  )  that  the  genealogy  in  the 
fifth  chapter  of  Genesis  implies  a  "settled  calendar  and 
a  regular  registration  of  births  and  deaths;  (2)  that  such 
a  record  could  not  have  been  preserved  until  the  com- 
position of  Genesis;  and  (3)  that  science  precludes  the 
possibility  of  such  figures  being  literally  correct." 

Let  us  see  what  kind  of  reasoning  this  is.  It  is 
argued  that  the  preservation  in  one  family  of  the  ages 
of  sire  and  son  for  ten  generations  implies  a  "settled 
calendar  and  a  regular  registration  of  births  and  deaths." 
In  the  current  sense  of  these  terms  it  implies  no  such 
thing.  It  would  be  very  easy  for  Adam  and  Eve  to  keep 
an  account  of  the  summers  and  winters  as  they  passed, 
and  when  the  number  became  large  to  cut  a  notch  in  a 
stick  for  every  one,  or  to  make  marks  of  some  other 
kind.  I  once  saw  a  copy  of  a  memorandum  kept  by  an 
American  Indian  who  could  neither  read  nor  write.  He 
bought  articles  on  credit  from  the  sutler  on  the  reserva- 
tion, to  be  paid  for  when  he  received  his  pension  from 
the  Government.  When  he  bought  a  pair  of  shoes,  he 
made  a  rude  picture  of  the  shoes  and  marked  under  it  a 
circle  for  every  dollar  he  was  to  pay  for  them,  a  semi- 
circle for  every  half-dollar,  and  a  quarter  of  a  circle  for 
every  quarter  of  a  dollar.  So  he  did  with  every  article 
which  he  bought ;  and  it  was  said  that  when  he  came  to 
settle  his  account  at  the  end  of  every  three  months,  he 
always  had  it  correct.     Was  Adam  too  stupid  to  do  what 


3i6  •  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

an  American  savage  could  do?  If  he  had  just  sprung 
from  a  baboon,  he  might  have  been;  but  if  God  created 
him  in  his  own  image  and  after  his  own  hkeness,  I 
should  think  that  he  had  some  sense  to  start  with.  And 
if  Adam  and  Eve  started  the  custom  of  keeping  an 
account  of  the  ages  of  themselves  and  their  children,  it 
would  be  very  easy  for  at  least  one  line  of  his  descend- 
ants to  keep  it  up. 

As  to  the  preservation  of  such  a  record  till  the  com- 
position of  Genesis,  there  is  no  difficulty  whatever.  It  is 
now  a  settled  fact,  made  so  by  recent  discoveries  in 
archaeology,  that  the  art  of  writing  reached  back  very 
close  to  the  days  of  Noah  ;  and  as  the  fifth  chapter  of 
Genesis  was  the  family  tree  of  Noah,  it  is  not  in  the 
slightest  degree  incredible  that  it  should  have  been  pre- 
served in  his  family  till  it  was  so  embedded  in  literature 
that  it  could  never  be  lost. 

The  second  argument  of  Professor  Briggs  is  equally 
illogical  with  the  first.  That  the  traditions  of  other  races 
assigned  to  men  of  early  times  great  longevity,  is  evi- 
dence in  favor  of  the  Biblical  tradition,  instead  of  being 
against  it.  It  is  one  of  the  canons  of  historical  criticism 
that  a  tradition  current  in  any  race  of  people  is  rendered 
far  more  probable  when  it  is  found  to  exist  among 
another  race,  and  especially  if  the  other  is  a  distant  and 
hostile  race.  This  is  because  the  existence  of  such  a 
tradition  can  scarcely  be  accounted  for  unless  it  has  a 
foundation  in  fact. 

But,  finally,  Professor  Briggs  says  that  *'the  study  of 
science  precludes  the  possibility  of  such  figures  being 
hterally  correct."  In  the  absence  of  proof,  it  is  sufficient 
to  answer  this  assertion  by  a  denial.  If  man  came  into 
existence  by  evolution  from  a  lower  animal,  there  would 
be   plausibility   in   this   assertion,   though   even   on   that 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  317 

hypothesis  it  would  not  be  necessarily  true.  And  really 
the  acceptance  of  this  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  human 
race  is  the  ground,  after  all,  of  this  skepticism  in  refer- 
ence to  the  early  narratives  of  Genesis.  It  will  be  time 
enough  to  have  some  respect  for  the  skepticism  when  the 
doctrine  of  the  evolution  of  the  human  race  is  proved  to 
be  founded  in  fact.  Till  then  men  of  ordinary  prudence 
will  still  prefer  to  believe  what  God  says  in  his  Word. 


[March  18,  1899.] 

PROFESSOR    BRIGGS    ON    THE    GIFT    OF 

TONGUES. 

Under  the  head  of  "Criticism  in  the  Daily  Paper,"  I 
recently  presented  an  extract  from  Professor  Briggs' 
latest  book,  which  appeared  in  the  Louisville  Daily 
Times.  I  now  give  another,  in  which,  after  quoting  the 
statement  in  the  second  chapter  of  Acts  that  the  apostles 
were  filled  w^ith  the  Holy  Spirit  and  began  to  speak  in 
other  tongues,  the  Professor  says : 

It  was  evidently  the  frenzied  or  ecstatic  utterance  of  sounds 
ordinarily  unintelligible  both  to  speakers  and  hearers.  It  was 
not  unnatural  that  a  speaker  should  appear  demented  to  an 
unbelieving  auditor,  as  Paul  implies  was  not  unfrequently  the 
case.  No  other  gift  enjoyed  by  the  early  church  so  vividly 
reveals  the  inspired  and  enthusiastic  character  of  primitive 
Christianity.  It  was  apparently  this  gift  of  tongues  with  which 
the  disciples  were  endowed  at  Pentecost,  and  they  spoke  there- 
fore not  in  foreign  languages,  but  in  the  ecstatic,  frenzied,  un- 
intelligible spiritual  speech  of  which  Paul  tells  us  in  the  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  The  speaking  in  many  different  lan- 
guages unknown  before  is  not  only  psychologically  and  physic- 
ally incredible,  but  has  little  historic  support  in  the  latter  inter- 
pretation of  the  ancient  documents  by  the  author  of  our  Book 
of  Acts. 

Every  man  who  has  ever  read  the  Book  of  Acts  will 


3i8  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

recognize  in  this  extract  a  flat  contradiction  of  Luke's 
narrative.  Not  only  did  the  apostles  speak  in  foreign 
languages  that  were  understood  by  the  hearers,  some 
understanding  one  and  some  another,  but  the  fact  that 
this  was  done  by  Galileans,  wdio  knew  only  their  mother 
tongue,  was  the  one  significant  fact  that  gave  to  Peter's 
speech  which  followed  all  of  its  power  over  the  multi- 
tude. If  Professor  Briggs  is  right,  the  whole  of  the 
second  chapter  of  Acts  is  a  deception  and  a  fraud.  No 
reason  that  can  be  properly  called  a  reason  can  be  given 
for  such  an  interpretation.  To  say  that  such  a  miracle 
is  "psychologically  and  physically  incredible,"  is  simply 
to  say  that  miracles  are  incredible.  What  is  there  more 
incredible,  either  psychologically  or  physically,  in  this 
than  in  raising  Lazarus  from  the  dead?  To  reject  a 
miracle  on  this  ground  is  to  reject  all  miracles,  or  to  be 
involved  in  illogical  inconsistencies  of  which  a  man  like 
Professor  Briggs  ought  to  be  ashamed.  If  he  continues 
to  progress,  he  will  scarcely  be  able  to  remain  in  the 
Episcopal  Church,  where  he  has  recently  landed,  but  will 
finally  glide  into  company  with  Ingersoll.  The  sooner, 
the  better  for  the  good  of  those  who  may  still  be  under 
his  influence. 


[Jan.  21,  1899.] 

INERRANCY. 

A  brother  in  a  distant  State  sends  me  the  following 
clipping  from  the  Saturday  Post,  and  asks  me  to  say 
what  I  think  of  it : 

Religious  precisianists  have  received  quite  a  shock  by  the 
public  declaration  of  the  learned  Dr.  Temple,  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  that  he  had  no  doubt  there  were  inaccuracies  in 
the  Old  Testament  narratives,  "though  the  writers  told  the  truth 
as  far  as  they  knew  it." 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  319 

On  l)cing  asked  if  the  archbishop  had  really  made  the  state- 
ment, his  chaplain  replied  that  His  Grace  had  been  correctly 
reported,  that  he  was  sincere  in  his  opinion,  and  that  he  referred 
those  who  differed  with  him  to  2  Sam.  24:  13,  and  i  Chron.  21: 
12,  as  samples. 

In  these  two  narratives  of  the  divine  message  given  to  the 
prophet  Gad  for  delivery  unto  David,  the  first  speaks  of  the 
famine  as  being  of  seven  years'  duration,  and  the  second  as  of 
three  years.  Both  agree  on  the  length  of  the  flight  and  pesti- 
lence. 

If  any  "religious  precisianists,"  a  new  name  for  some- 
body, received  "quite  a  shock"  from  the  archbishop's 
public  declaration,  it  must  have  been  because  they  did 
not  know  the  gentleman,  or  because  they  have  the  im- 
pression that  what  an  archbishop  says  must  be  so.  There 
are  some  people  so  full  of  reverence  for  lofty  titles  as 
not  to  know  that  sometimes  very  incompetent  men  attain 
to  high  dignities  in  hierarchical  churches. 

Dr.  Temple,  however,  is  a  man  of  high  rank  as  a 
scholar.  He  was  exalted  to  the  archbishopric  of  Canter- 
bury, the  highest  dignity  in  the  Church  of  England,  some 
two  or  three  years  ago,  but  not  without  very  decided 
dissatisfaction  on  the  part  of  a  vast  number  of  conserva- 
tive members  of  that  church.  So  decided  was  this  dis- 
satisfaction that  a  man  who  had  a  voice  in  the  convoca- 
tion raised  a  public  protest  against  his  ordination  in  the 
midst  of  the  services — a  protest  unprecedented,  I  believe, 
on  such  an  occasion.  Xo  one,  then,  who  knows  him 
could  be  surprised,  and  much  less  could  he  be  shocked, 
at  such  an  utterance  as  the  preceding  from  his  lips,  or 
even  an  utterance  much  more  radical  than  this. 

The  incident  is  not  specially  worthy  of  notice  in  itself, 
but  it  serves  as  a  good  introduction  to  some  remarks  I 
wish  to  make  on  the  subject  of  the  inerrancy  of  the 
Bible.     Let  me  commence  by  saying  that  no  man  of  any 


320 


SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 


intelligence  has  ever  claimed  that  the  Bible,  as  we  now 
read  it,  is  without  errors.  It  has  been  known  by  every 
man  who  ever  wrote  or  read  a  commentary  worth  calling- 
such,  that  the  Bible  contains  many  errors  of  transcrip- 
tion. They  have  been  a  subject  of  remark  by  Christian 
writers  from  the  time  of  Origen  and  Irenseus  of  the 
second  century  till  the  present  time ;  for  textual  criticism, 
which  has  to  do  with  the  detection  and  correction  of  such 
errors,  is  one  of  the  oldest  branches  of  Christian  learn- 
ing. Origen's  "Hexapla,"  which  contained  in  parallel 
columns  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  same 
spelt  in  Greek  letters,  and  four  Greek  translations,  was 
intended  to  present  the  state  of  the  Old  Testament  text 
at  the  close  of  the  second  Christian  century.  If  it  were 
extant  now,  it  would  be  worth  more  than  its  weight  in 
gold,  though  it  was  one  of  the  largest  volumes  ever 
written. 

In  view  of  these  well-known  facts,  vvhen  a  man  of 
Archbishop  Temple's  intelligence  speaks  flippantly  of 
errors  in  the  Bible,  referring  only  to  those  which  may 
be  fairly  classed  with  errors  of  transcription,  he  speaks 
in  a  way  to  mislead  the  people.  F^or  when  any  man  of 
intelligence  on  the  subject  affirms  the  inerrancy  of  the 
Scriptures,  he  refers  to  these  writings  as  they  came  from 
the  hands  of  their  authors,  and  not  as  they  have  come 
through  the  hands  of  uninspired  copyists.  In  the  Scrip- 
tures as  thus  defined  no  man  has  yet  successfully  made 
out  a  single  error  in  fact  or  in  thought.  This  may  appear 
to  some  who  are  ever  ready  to  invalidate  historical  state- 
ments of  the  Old  Testament,  or  to  learnedly  make  refer- 
ence to  the  ''rabbinical"  reasoning  of  Paul,  as  a  reckless 
assertion.  If  so,  I  shall  esteem  it  a  favor  if  some  one 
of  them  will  attempt  to  show  in  these  columns  one  or 
two  of  these  errors.     There  are  some  men  who  throw 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  321 

out,  in  an  oracular  manner,  deliverance,^  unfriendly  to 
the  Bible,  but  never  ieel  called  upon,  when  their  oracles 
are  called  in  question,  to  defend  them.  A  Ljoose  will  try 
to  protect  the  eggs  which  she  has  laid,  but  the  ostrich  is 
said  to  leave  hers  to  the  fate  that  may  await  them.  The 
latter  is  regarded  as  the  more  unnatural  w^ay ;  and  it  has 
even  been  called  a  foolish  way.  However,  the  men  who 
thus  affect  to  leave  their  eggs  to  take  care  of  themselves 
are  not  ahvays  as  little  concerned  about  them  as  they 
affect  to  be  ;  for  while  they  dare  not  come  out  openly  in 
defense  of  their  offspring,  they  sometimes  resort  to 
*'ways  that  are  dark  and  tricks  that  are  queer." 

But  I  must  pay  my  respects  to  Dr.  Temple's  specifica- 
tion. He  selects  as  an  example  of  error  in  the  Bible  the 
evident  contradiction  between  2  Samuel  and  i  Chronicles 
as  to  the  number  of  years  of  famine  proposed  as  a  pun- 
ishment of  David.  Now,  Dr.  Temple  knows  very  well 
that  the  Book  of  Samuel,  as  we  now  have  it,  was  in 
existence  long  before  the  Book  of  Chronicles  was  writ- 
ten. There  is  no  diff'erence  between  believing  and  unbe- 
lieving critics  on  this  point.  \Miile  the  author  of  Chron- 
icles was  writing,  he  had  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  of 
Kings  before  him,  and  he  copied  from  them  a  large  part 
of  his  own  book.  He  accepted  these  books,  as  did  all  of 
his  Jewish  contemporaries,  as  the  writings  of  inspired 
prophets.  Is  it  then  credible  that  in  writing  of  the  same 
events  he  would  deliberately  substitute  for  what  he  found 
in  his  authorities  contradictory  statements  of  his  own?  It 
is  just  as  credible  as  that  an  honest  man  at  the  present 
day,  in  writing  a  careful  account  of  a  Scriptural  trans- 
action, would  do  the  same.  If  there  had  been  nothing 
else  to  deter  him,  he  would  have  been  deterred  by  the 
certainty  that  his  countrymen  would  reject  his  book  and 
thus  bring  his  work  to  nought. 


322  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Again,  is  it  credible  that,  if  this  error,  and  many 
others  now  in  Chronicles  with  which  Dr.  Temple  is 
familiar,  and  which  he  could  have  specified  as  easily, 
had  been  in  the  first  edition  of  the  Book  of  Chronicles, 
the  Jews  of  that  age,  who  are  represented  by  our  new 
school  of  critics  as  being  worshipers  of  the  Scriptures, 
would  have  allowed  it  a  place  in  their  sacred  canon?  I 
believe  that  every  fair-minded  man  who  will  stop  to 
reflect  will  answer  these  questions  in  the  negative.  On 
the  other  hand,  is  it  credible  that  in  the  course  of  the 
ages  after  this  Book  of  Chronicles  was  written,  and 
before  the  stringent  rules  which  in  the  fifth  century  of 
our  era  governed  Jewish  copyists  were  in  force,  many 
mistakes  were  made  in  copying,  especially  mistakes  in 
numerals,  the  very  class  of  mistakes  even  now  most  com- 
monly made  by  compositors  in  our  printing-offices?  No 
man  of  intelligence  will  say  that  this  is  incredible.  On 
the  contrary,  all  agree  that  nothing  short  of  miraculous 
supervision  of  the  scribes  while  at  their  work  could  have 
prevented  the  occurrence  of  many  such  mistakes.  When, 
therefore,  such  mistakes  are  found,  who  deals  honestly, 
or,  if  you  please,  scientifically,  with  these  writings,  he 
who  ascribes  the  mistakes  to  the  transcribers,  or  he  who 
ascribes  them  to  the  original  writer?  If  I  were  charged 
with  all  the  mistakes  which  appear  in  my  articles  almost 
every  week,  and  which  have  appeared  in  the  first  editions 
of  all  the  books  that  I  have  published,  I  would  esteem  it 
a  very  great  hardship;  and  if  I  were  guilty  of  them,  I 
think  that  I  would  write  no  more  till  I  could  go  to  school 
a  few  more  sessions.  Why  visit  upon  the  heads  of  the 
holy  men  who  wrote  the  Bible  a  hardship  which  no 
modern  writer  could  bear  with  patience  ?  Somebody  will 
have  to  give  account  for  this  mistreatment  of  the  men 
who  wrote  "the  living  oracles." 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  323 

[Jai?.  28.  1859.1 
COURTESY  IX   COXTRO\'ERSY. 

The  Christian  Oracle  of  recent  date  has  an  editorial 
article  headed  "Courtesy  in  Controversy,"  which  starts 
out  by  affirming-  that  "the  spirit  of  the  controversialist  is 
almost  uniformly  harsh,  hypercritical  and  unkind."  The 
editor  evidently  has  in  his  mind  some  controversialists 
with  whom  he  had  a  controversy,  and  he  strikingly  illus- 
trates his  charge  against  almost  all  controversialists  by 
the  manner  in  which  he  lays  on  the  lash.  He  admits  that 
these  antagonists  are  not  as  cruel  as  men  of  their  class 
once  were,  but  he  says  of  them :  "One  antagonist  would 
not  burn  the  other  if  he  could,  but  he  will  pursue  him 
with  the  firebrands  of  innuendo  and  misrepresentation, 
until  he  drives  him  out  of  the  ranks  of  the  brethren. 
There  is  the  same  harshness,  the  same  misconception  and 
the  same  angry  characterization  of  the  other's  work  as 
destructive,  infidel,  devilish;"  and  he  adds  that  if  the 
antagonist  who  is  thus  assailed  is  as  bad  as  he  is  repre- 
sented, it  would  be  better  generalship  to  ''sturdily  combat 
him  instead  of  telling  lies  about  him." 

^^>ll,  if  this  is  the  kind  of  courtesy  toward  those  it 
strikes  at,  which  the  Oracle  would  commend  to  us,  I 
believe  I  must  decline  it.  I  don't  like  to  charge  people 
with  telling  lies,  or  with  pursuing  brethren  "with  the 
firebrands  of  innuendo  and  misrepresentation."  This  is 
not  the  kind  of  courtesy  which  meets  my  approval.  I 
prefer  the  old  maxim,  Suaz-itcr  in   inodo,  fortitcr  in  re. 

In  the  same  editorial  the  editor  propounds  the  follow- 
ing labored  question:  *Tf  we  have  among  us  students  of 
unblemished  character  and  unquestioned  devotion,  men 
who,  while  they  accept  gratefully  the  heritage  of  the 
fathers,  are  determined  to  pioneer  the  way  into  wider 


324  SHGRT   ESSAYS   IN 

fields,  even  as  the  fathers  in  their  own  day  did,  shall  we 
not  be  grateful  for  them?  Shall  we  not  take  a  just  pride 
in  the  aggressive  discipleship ?"  Be  grateful  for  them? 
Yes;  and  be  grateful  to  them.  Take  pride  in  them? 
Yes ;  hold  them  up  to  the  admiration  of  the  rising  gen- 
eration. Such  men  are  the  light  of  the  world.  Does 
anybody  answer  differently?  Has  anybody  acted  differ- 
ently ?  The  editor  seems  to  think  so ;  but  perhaps  he  was 
just  awakening  out  of  a  bad  dream  when  he  wrote  the 
article.  No  Christian  can  refuse  to  honor  such  students. 
But  if  we  have  among  us  a  student,  however  unblem- 
ished his  character,  who,  while  professing  to  pioneer  the 
way  into  wider  fields,  jumps  the  outside  fence  and  runs 
into  the  wildwood  of  skeptical  thought,  I  think  we  ought 
to  warn  other  students  against  his  example,  build  that 
fence  a  little  higher,  and  try  to  keep  ambitious  colts 
inside.  Prove  all  things,  and  hold  fast  only  that  which 
is  ofood. 


[Dec.  10,  1898.1 

A    GOOD    SUGGESTION. 

From  a  recent  number  of  the  Western  Recorder  I 
clip  the  following  paragraph  : 

Prof.  Carl  Bndcle,  of  Strasburg,  Germany,  has  been  lectur- 
ing at  the  University  of  Chicago  on  "The  Religion  of  Israel." 
According  to  the  newspaper  accounts,  he  denied  most  that 
Christian  people  have  believed  about  the  Old  Testament.  We 
v^ould  respectfully  suggest,  for  the  sake  of  variety,  that  some 
orthodox  man  be  invited  to  deliver  some  lectures  at  the  Univer- 
sity of  Chicago. 

The  Standard  [Chicago]  found  no  fault  with  Professor 
Budde's  lectures — we  have  never  known  of  its  objecting  to  any- 
thing that  was  said  or  done  in  the  University  of  Chicago.  But 
the  Standard  and  other  papers  spoke  of  the  sweet  spirit  of  the 
German  professor.     With   some  people   it   is   all   right   to   con- 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  3-'5 

tradict  "Moses  and  the  prophets,"'  provided  only  it  is  done  in  a 
sweet  spirit. 

The  suggestion  of  the  Recorder  is  a  good  one,  but  it 
is  not  likely  to  be  adopted.  Chicago  University  is  in 
favor  of  free  speech,  and  this  means  free  speech  on  only 
one  side  of  critical  questions.  If  a  man  speaks  in  favor 
of  orthodox  belief  in  the  Bible,  his  is  not  free  speech;  it 
is  the  speech  of  bondage.  And  then,  if  a  man  with  the 
old  belief  in  the  Bible  were  to  be  let  loose  in  Chicago 
University,  he  might,  in  his  natural  indignation  at  the 
skepticism  prevalent  there,  say  some  thmgs  which  would 
not  be  "sweet-spirited."  He  might  express  the  opinion 
that  somebody  is  in  danger  of  the  wrath  of  God ;  and 
this,  in  Chicago  University,  would  be  an  unpardonable 
sin.  The  style  of  Joab  is  the  popular  style  now.  When 
you  are  stabbing  the  truth  under  the  fifth  rib,  you  must 
do  it  with  a  smile  and  a  kiss.  This  is  orthodoxy  accord- 
ing to  the  standard  of  the  "critics." 


[Dec.  17,  1898.] 

DID    HE    SUFFER    THE    PENALTY? 

Resuming  the  subject  of  the  atonement,  as  promised 
last  week,  I  now  ask  in  what  way  did  the  death  of 
Christ  enable  God  to  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him 
who  believes?  The  most  common  answer  is  that  he  suf- 
fered the  penalty  that  was  due  for  the  sins  of  men,  and 
thus  men  were  set  free.  But  is  this  true  as  a  matter  of 
fact  ?  What  was  the  penalty  for  sin  ?  According  to  thfi 
Scriptures  it  was  eternal  punishment  and  internal  re- 
morse. Did  Jesus  suiter  this?  It  is  absolutely  certain 
that  he  did  not.  His  suffering  did  not  include  the 
element  of  remorse  in  any  degree  :  neither  was  it  eternal 
in  duration.     Furthermore,  if  he  did  suft'er  the  penalty 


326  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

clue  for  the  sins  of  all  men,  then  no  man  can  be  subject 
to  that  penalty  in  his  own  person,  and  universal  release 
from  punishment  is  the  consequence.  But  if,  to  escape 
this  unscriptural  conclusion,  we  say  with  the  Calvinist 
than  Jesus  suffered  the  penalty  for  the  elect  alone,  and 
that  consequently  all  of  them  will  be  saved,  we  are  in- 
volved in  a  contradiction  of  the  Scripture  doctrine  that 
he  tasted  death  for  every  man.  And  in  either  case  the 
doctrine  is  proved  false  by  the  fact  that  in  so  far  as  the 
punishment  of  sin  consists  in  remorse  of  conscience,  the 
daily  experience  of  all  is  that  we  actually  suffer  this,  and 
that  therefore  Jesus  did  not  take  it  away. 

This  line  of  reasoning  can  not  be  broken  ;  and,  seeing 
this,  many  thoughtful  Calvinists  have  modified  the  doc- 
trine by  putting  it  in  this  form  that  while  Christ  did 
not  suffer  the  exact  penalty  that  was  due  for  sin,  his 
sufferings  and  his  person  w^ere  such  that  God  could,  and 
did,  accept  them  as  an  equivalent  for  the  penalty  due  to 
sin.  To  this  there  are  two  objections  that  are  each  fatal: 
first,  there  is  not  a  hint  of  such  an  idea  to  be  found  in 
the  Scripture ;  and,  second,  it  involves  equally  with  the 
theory  in  its  baldest  form  the  consequence  that  all  men 
must  escape  punishment.  For,  if  Christ  suffered  the 
equivalent  of  the  penalty  the  sinners  escaped  from,  it  is 
not  less  necessary  than  if  he  suffered  the  exact  penalty. 
No  such  explanation  can  satisfy ;  and  I  venture  the  asser- 
tion that  no  explanation  that  will  satisfy  can  be  given.  I 
say  this  for  the  reason  that  without  some  utterance  from 
God  which  he  has  not  vouchsafed,  the  human  mind  can 
never  be  sure  what  his  reasoning  on  the  matter  is.  And 
it  is  not  necessary  that  we  should.  The  question  has 
reference  to  the  divine  side  of  the  problem  of  salvation, 
and  not  to  the  human  side.  It  is  enough  for  us  to  know 
and  act  upon  the  human  side. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  327 

Recurring  now  to  the  thought  advanced  last  week, 
that  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  forgive  a  crime  without 
encouraging  the  commission  of  crime,  and  that  God 
could  not  be  perfectly  just  to  his  other  creatures  if,  in 
pardoning  a  single  sinner,  he  should  weaken  the  moral 
restraints  felt  by  others,  I  think  we  shall  be  able  to  obtain 
a  view  of  the  atonement  which  should  be  thoroughly 
satisfying  to  our  minds.  I  was  once  in  conversation  with 
a  brother  on  this  subject  who  said,  "The  father  of  the 
returning  prodigaJ  forgave  his  son  without  subjecting 
him  or  anybody  else  to  suffering  in  order  that  he  might 
do  it :  and  why  could  not  God  do  the  same?"  I  answered, 
''You  forget  that  when  the  father  of  the  prodigal  did  this 
he  stirred  up  strife  in  his  own  family.  His  elder  son 
resented  it,  and  with  a  considerable  show  of  reason."  So 
might  it  have  been  in  God's  government ;  or,  if  none  of 
his  creatures  had  complained  of  the  unconditional  pardon 
of  sinful  men,  they  certainly  might  have  felt  that  it  was 
no  very  serious  matter  to  sin  against  God. 

If,  now,  the  death  of  Jesus  as  a  propitiation  for  sin, 
enables  God  to  justify  the  believer  without  encouraging 
sin  in  him  or  in  any  other  accountable  being,  the  problem 
is  solved.  By  reasoning  a  priori  I  should  not  be  able  to 
say  that  it  did  ;  but  by  reasoning  from  the  actual  results 
I  can.  I  can  see  as  a  fact  of  human  experience  that  men 
Avho  believe  that  Jesus  died  for  our  sins,  are  so  far  from 
being  encouraged  to  continue  in  sin,  that  this  is  the  one 
effective  persuasive  that  turns  them  away  from  sin.  In 
forgiving  the  believer  on  this  ground  God  causes  him  to 
hate  sin,  and  he  causes  all  who  witness  the  fact  to  feel 
less  inclined  to  sin.  Explain  this  fact,  or  leave  it  unex- 
plained, it  is  unquestionably  a  fact  of  human  experience: 
and  we  may  safely  say  that  it  is  a  fact  of  angelic  experi- 
ence also  ;  for  do  not  the  angels  in  heaven  glorify  God 


328  SHORT   ESSAYS  IN 

on  this  very  account,  saying,  "Worthy  art  thou  to  take 
the  book  and  to  open  the  seals  thereof:  for  thou  wast 
slain,  and  didst  purchase  unto  God  with  thy  blood  men 
of  every  tribe,  and  tongue,  and  people,  and  nation,  and 
madest  them  to  be  unto  our  God  a  kingdom  and  priests  ; 
and  they  reign  upon  the  earth."  Such  a  song  they  could 
not  sing  if  they  experienced  in  consequence  of  the  for- 
giveness of  sinful  men  any  weakening  of  the  moral 
restraints  which  held  them  to  the  service  of  God.  This 
consideration  vindicates  the  wisdom  and  justice  of  ex- 
tending mercy  to  penitent  believers  in  Christ ;  and  this  is 
all  that  we  need  to  know — all,  perhaps,  that  we  shall  ever 
know  of  God's  thoughts  on  this  profound-  subject. 


[Dec.  10,  1898.] 

A    VERY    SERIOUS    INQUIRY. 

Among  the  preachers  of  Kentucky  forty  years  ago, 
few  were  more  highly  respected  than  Carroll  Kendrick. 
He  was  noted  for  austere  morality,  fervent  piety,  and  the 
strictest  ideas  in  church  discipline.  He  spent  his  last 
days  in  California,  and  died  in  a  ripe  old  age.  His  son 
and  namesake.  Dr.  J.  Carroll  Kendrick,  sends  me  the 
query  quoted  below,  and  prefaces  it  with  a  narrative  of 
a  midnight  conversation  held  with  another  physician  at 
the  bedside  of  a  dying  patient.  This  physician  said,  in 
substance,  ''that  the  Christian  religion  is  as  irrational  and 
unworthy  of  confidence  as  those  which  Christians  de- 
nounce as  false  religions;  that  the  very  basis  of  it  is  the 
assumption  that  the  God  of  heaven  sent  his  Son  into  the 
world  to  sufifer  poverty,  endure  shame,  and  finally  to  die 
ignominiously,  just  to  please  him,  or  to  satisfy  some  law 
of  justice,  or  to  have  the  approbation  of  those  intelli- 
gences who  might  adversely  criticize  him  if  he  pardoned 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  329 

erring  man  without  justice  being  meted  out  in  some  sat- 
isfactory way."  The  physician  who  said  this  was  a  mem- 
ber of  an  orthodox  church  and  an  officer  in  it.  Dr. 
Kendrick  thinks  that  "this  talk  voices  what  not  a  few 
would  say  if  made  to  speak  out  their  sentiments."  His 
reflections  thereon  gave  rise  to  the  following  query : 

Prof.  John  W.  McGarvey  : — Is  there  "another  side"  in  the 
matter  of  "The  Atonement"  (so  emphasized  by  those  who  dwell 
on  the  "dignity  of  the  law  upheld,"  "the  demands  of  the  law 
met,"  "justice  meted  out,"  etc.),  other  than 

That,  in  the  shedding  of  Christ's  blood,  the  giving  up  of 
his  life,  he  by  dying  was  enabled  to  perform  such  a  miracle  as 
no  one  had  ever  performed,  and  of  such  an  exalted  nature,  in- 
volving such  inestimable  interests  to  man.  thereby  demonstrating 
his  superiority  to  man's  hitherto  invincible  and  inexorable  foe  to 
desirable  existence — death: 

That  through  this  convincing  miracle  (the  resurrection  from. 
the  dead)  men  might  believe  him  to  be  what  he  asserted  he  was 
— divine;  and  if  divine,  worthy  of  all  confidence  as  to  his 
claims,  as  to  his  disposition  toward  men,  and  as  to  his  ability 
to  do  for  them — and  which  "intelligent  acceptance  of  him"  occa- 
sions man  to  take  Christ  as  the  "man  of  their  counsel,"  his  law 
as  the  "rule  of  their  life" — his  promises  as  the  incentive  to  action 
— so  developing  characters  suitable  for  the  association  of  the 
"blest  of  earth  and  the  pure  of  heaven"  ?  Fraternally, 

JuLiEX  Carroll  Kendrick. 

We  may  safely  assert  that  our  Lord's  death  involves 
all  that  is  here  so  well  expressed ;  but  to  say  that  it 
involves  no  more,  would  be  to  contradict  some  of  the 
plainest  utterances  both  of  himself  and  his  apostles.  He 
says,  for  example:  ''The  Son  of  man  came  not  to  be 
ministered  to,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a 
ransom  for  many"  (]\ratt.  19:23).  Now,  a  ransom  is 
not  merely  a  deliverance  from  captivity,  but  it  is  a  price- 
paid  for  such  deliverance.  Tt  is  not,  therefore,  a  con- 
sideration  afifecting  the   relation   between   the   ransomer 


330  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

and  him  who  is  ransomed,  but  one  between  the  ransomer 
and  some  third  party.  In  this  case  the  third  party  is  not 
brought  into  view,  and  consequently  the  exact  nature  of 
the  ransom  is  left  in  obscurity  ;  but  we  dare  not,  because 
of  this,  reject  the  thought  of  a  ransom,  as  we  do  when 
we  confine  the  design  of  his  death  to  the  effects  men- 
tioned in  the  query.  Again,  he  says :  "This  is  my  blood 
of  the  covenant  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins." 
'Tor  the  remission  of  sins"  means  in  plainer  English  in 
order  to  the  forgiveness" of  sins;  and  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  is  not,  as  some  men  who  disregard  the  meaning  of 
the  commonest  words  assert,  deliverance  from  the  prac- 
tice of  sin,  but  just  such  forgiveness  as  we  are  com- 
manded to  extend  to  those  who  sin  against  us.  It  was  in 
order  that  God  might  thus  forgive,  not  those  who  are 
still  living  in  sin,  but  those  who  have  repented  of  their 
sins,  that  the  blood  of  the  covenant  was  shed.  Here,  as 
in  the  case  of  ransom,  is  something  that  affects  the 
divine  government  in  the  administration  of  mercy;  and 
it  looks  in  a  different  direction  from  all  that  is  written 
in  the  query. 

Identical  in  thought,  though  not  in  diction,  is  the 
well-known  deliverance  of  Peter,  that  we  are  ''redeemed" 
from  our  vain  manner  of  life  with  the  precious  blood  of 
Christ  (i  Pet.  i  :  i8,  19).  Redemption  is  not  mere  deliv- 
erance, but  deliverance  by  the  payment  of  a  price.  The 
blood  of  Christ  is  declared  to  be  the  price,  and  this  the 
apostle  makes  emphatic  by  the  contrast,  ''not  with  cor- 
ruptible things,  with  silver  or  gold,  but  with  precious 
blood."  I  might  add  to  this  class  of  quotations,  but  I 
pass  to  another  deliverance  on  the  subject,  which  brings 
it  before  us  in  a  slightly  different  point  of  view. 

Paul,  in  his  most  profound  discussion  of  this  very 
subject,  speaks  of  Jesus  thus :  "Whom  God  set  forth  to 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  331 

be  a  propitiation  through  faith,  by  his  blood,  to  show  his 
righteousness,  because  of  the  passing  over  of  the  sins 
done  aforetime  in  the  forbearance  of  God;  for  the  show- 
ing, I  say,  of  his  righteousness  at  this  present  season : 
that  he  might  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him  that  hath 
faith  in  Jesus"  (Rom.  3:25,  26).  Passing  by  what  is 
said  of  the  sins  done  aforetime — that  is,  under  the  for- 
mer dispensations — and  looking  to  that  which  is  asserted 
of  "this  present  season,"  we  see  it  here  very  plainly 
asserted  that  Christ  was  set  forth  by  God  as  a  propitia- 
tion, by  his  blood,  that  God  himself  might  be  just,  and 
at  the  same  time  justifier  of  him  who  believes  in  Jesus. 
Here  is  something  quite  different  from  that  moral  force 
by  which  the  life  and  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ 
cause  men  to  become  believers  in  him,  and  consequently 
imitators  of  his  virtues.  It  is  something  that  enables 
God,  after  a  man  has  thus  been  changed,  to  be  just  in 
justifying  him — that  is,  in  forgiving  his  sins.  It  is  neces- 
sarily implied  that,  without  this,  God  could  not  have 
justified  even  those  who  believe  in  Christ.  And  it  is  the 
fact  of  a  propitiation  which  looks  Godward,  never  man- 
ward,  which  has  this  enabling  power. 

In  this  passage  Paul  penetrates  the  very  core  of  this 
profound  problem  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  Those 
who  speak  of  the  subject,  as  did  the  physician  quoted  by 
Dr.  Kendrick,  betray  a  want  of  appreciative  thought  on 
the  subject,  and  at  the  same  time  a  feeling  of  resentment 
toward  explanations  which  have  proved  unsatisfactory. 
A  very  little  reflection  must  impress  any  man  with  the 
thought  that  the  exercise  of  pardon  in  any  government, 
human  or  divine,  is  a  hazardous  procedure.  Its  abuse  by 
many  governors  of  our  States  is  one  of  the  crying  evils 
of  our  civil  administration.  Seldom  is  the  pardoning 
power  exercised  without  the  feeling  on  the  part  of  many 


332  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

citizens  that  it  encourages  the  commission  of  crime,  and 
any  act  which  encourcvges  crime  is  an  act  of  injustice  to 
the  whole  community.  It  is  also,  in  many  instances,  an. 
act  of  injustice  to  the  criminal  himself,  who  is  seriously 
injured  when  encouraged  to  think  that  he  can  commit 
crime  wath  impunity.  It  is  evident  from  these  considera- 
tions that  in  a  perfect  government  over  men,  such  as  the 
divine  government  must  of  necessity  be,  no  pardon  can 
be  justly  granted  that  has  such  an  effect  on  the  criminal 
himself,  or  on  others  who  might  be  encouraged  to  com- 
mit crime  by  the  clemency  extended  to  him.  Paul  teaches 
that  the  death  of  Christ  was  intended  to  meet  this  dif- 
ficulty, if  I  may  so  style  it,  in  the  divine  government, 
enabling  God  to  be  just  to  the  sinner  himself,  and  just 
to  all  under  his  divine  government,  while  justifying  from 
sin  those  who  believe.  This,  now,  is  the  revealed  fact  in 
the  case,  which  we  are  to  accept  whether  we  can  under- 
stand it  or  not ;  and  I  think  that  if  men  had  accepted  this 
fact  without  attempting-  to  explain  it,  we  should  have 
been  spared  much  perplexity.  I  think,  too,  that  preva- 
lent skepticism  on  the  subject,  which  is  no  new  thing 
under  the  sun,  but  one  of  the  oldest,  arises  chiefly  from 
mistaken  attempts  at  explanation.  I  propose  to  resume 
the  subject  next  week,  and  to  speak  definitely  of  some  of 
these  mistaken  attempts. 


[Dec.  17,  1898.] 

THE    REPROACH    OF    CHRIST. 

E.  L.  Frazier  asks  an  explanation  of  the  remark  that 
"Moses  esteemed  the  reproach  of  Christ  greater  riches 
than  the  treasures  of  Egypt"  (Heb.  11:26).  His  ques- 
tion is,  ''How  could  he  at  that  time  choose  between  Christ 
and  the  treasures  of  Egypt?" 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  333 

Among  the  many  attempts  to  explain  this  clause,  I 
think  that  the  following-  is  the  best.  Closes  knew  that 
if  he  should  acknowledge  himself  a  Hebrew,  thus  re- 
nouncing his  supposed  relationship  to  Pharaoh's  daugh- 
ter, and  should  he  espouse  the  cause  of  his  oppressed 
countrymen,  he  would  incur  extreme  reproach  at  the 
hand  of  all  his  former  friends  and  admirers ;  but  when 
he  looked  to  the  final  "recompense  of  reward''  he  ac- 
counted that  reproach  greater  riches — that  is,  a  greater 
source  of  enjoyment — than  the  treasures  of  Egypt.  He 
did  not  have  Christ  in  his  mind ;  but  the  writer  of  the 
Epistle,  seeing  the  identity  in  principle  of  this  self-sacri- 
fice with  that  which  Christ  had  undergone,  styles  it,  from 
his  own  point  of  view,  and  not  from  that  of  ]\Ioses,  the 
reproach  of  Christ.  The  voluntary  acceptance  of  re- 
proach instead  of  great  riches  was  so  pre-eminently  char- 
acteristic of  Christ,  that  any  similar  choice  might  be 
styled  the  reproach  of  Christ.  Closes  stands  pre-eminent 
among  men  for  this  most  Christlike  choice. 


[Dec.  17.  1898.1 
HOW    WAS    THE    JORDAN    CUT    OFF?> 

A  student  at  college  inquires  as  to  the  following 
explanation  of  the  passage  of  the  Jordan  by  the  Israel- 
ites under  Joshua :  There  were  some  high  hills  on  the 
immediate  bank  of  the  river  above  the  crossing-place;  a 
landslide  from  one  of  these  filled  the  channel  of  the  river 
and  stopped  its  flow.  Seeing  this,  Israel  took  advantage 
of  it  and  hastened  across.  One  of  his  Professors  has 
taught  him  that  this  is  ''highly  probable." 

It  is  no  uncommon  device  to  explain  away  miracles 
by  the  supposition  of  some  occurrence  perfectly  natural, 
but  unusual,  which  was  in  after  time  exaggerated  into  a 


334  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

miracle.  This  is  the  theory  on  which  Strauss  attempted 
to  account  for  all  the  miraculous  accounts  connected  with 
the  life  of  our  Lord.  This  attempt  of  the  Professor  is 
after  the  model  of  Strauss.  I  suppose  that  he  has  heard 
or  read  a  story  told  by  an  old  Arabian  writer  to  the  effect 
that  the  Sultan  Beibars  I.,  in  the  year  of  1267,  ordered 
the  construction  of  a  bridge  over  the  Jordan  a  short 
distance  above  Damieh ;  that  when  the  water  arose  in 
December  one  of  the  piers  gave  way  in  part;  that  the 
workmen  gathered  to  repair  it,  but  could  not  on  account 
of  the  high  water ;  but  that  suddenly  the  water  was  cut 
off  by  a  landslide  above  to  such  an  extent  that  the  work- 
men went  on  with  the  repairs  from  midnight  till  ten 
o'clock  the  next  day,  when  the  current  resumed  its  full 
flow.  A  translation  of  the  Arabic  story  may  be  found  in 
Professor  Bartlett's  "Veracity  of  the  Hexateuch,"  page 
361.  The  incident  is  not  impossible,  and  the  story  is  not 
im])robable ;  but  if  this,  or  something  like  it,  is  all  that 
occurred  at  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan  by  Israel,  then  the 
account  given  in  Joshua  is  false  in  all  of  its  details,  and 
it  would  be  more  candid  to  say  this  at  once  than  to 
explain  it  away  after  this  fashion.  If  the  student  re- 
ferred to  will  ask  for  a  candid  expression  of  the  Pro- 
fessor's opinion,  he  will  doubtless  be  told  that  the  whole 
account  in  Joshua  of  the  invasion  and  conquest  of 
Canaan  is  unhistorical ;  for  this  is  the  contention  of  the 
analytical  critics  whose  disciple  I  suppose  him  to  be. 

The  same  student  represents  another  professor  as 
teaching  that  the  apostles  were  mistaken  in  thinking  that 
the  second  coming  of  Jesus  would  take  place  in  their  own 
generation.  This  is  a  very  common  assertion  of  those 
who  deny  miraculous  inspiration,  and  there  are  some 
remarks  of  the  apostles  which  would  furnish  plausible 
support  to  it  if  there  were  not  others  which  contradict 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  335 

it.  For  example,  whatever  Paul  may  have  said  that  is 
ambiguous  on  the  subject,  when  he  took  it  up  for  formal 
discussion,  as  he  does  in  the  second  Epistle  to  the  Thes- 
salonians,  he  repudiates  that  idea.  He  says:  "Now  we 
beseech  you,  brethren,  touching  the  coming  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  our  gathering  together  unto  him  ;  to 
the  end  tnat  ye  be  not  quickly  shaken  from  your  mind, 
nor  yet  be  troubled,  either  by  spirit,  or  by  word,  or  by 
epistle  as  from  us,  as  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  is  now 
present ;  let  no  man  deceive  you  in  any  wise :  for  it  will 
not  be,  except  the  falling  away  [apostasy]  come  first, 
and  the  man  of  sin  be  revealed,  the  son  of  perdition,  he 
that  opposeth  and  exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is  called 
God  or  is  worshiped,  so  that  he  sitteth  in  the  temple  of 
God,  setting  himself  forth  as  God."  Read  all  the  para- 
graph. If  this  man  of  sin  is  not  popery,  then  he  has  not 
made  his  appearance  to  the  present  day ;  but  he  must 
appear  and  be  made  to  disappear  before  the  coming  of 
the  Lord,  as  Paul  understood  the  matter.  Peter  in  a 
different  way  speaks  to  the  same  effect,  when  he  says : 
"In  the  last  days  mockers  shall  come  with  mockery,  walk- 
ing after  their  own  lusts,  and  saying,  Where  is  the 
promise  of  his  coming?  for,  from  the  day  that  the  fathers 
fell  asleep,  all  things  continue  as  they  were  from  the 
beginning  of  the  creation"  (2  Pet.  3  :  3,  4).  If  the  mock- 
ers w^ere  to  say  this  after  the  fathers  fell  asleep,  then  the 
apostles  were  dead  and  gone  before  they  said  it. 

I  must  not  omit  to  say  that  the  "critics"  have  an  easy 
way  of  getting  rid  of  these  testimonies.  Baur  denies  that 
Paul  wrote  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  and  the 
whole  rationalistic  crowd  unite  in  denying  that  Peter 
wrote  the  second  Epistle  ascribed  to  him ;  but  this  is  only 
an  example  of  their  way  of  denying  the  genuineness  or 
the  authenticity  of  Scriptures,  which  stand  in  the  way  of 


336  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

their  theories.      If  they  could  not  do  this,  they  would 
have  to  relinquish  their  calling. 


[Sept.  24,  1898.] 

A  NEW  DANIEL  COME  TO  JUDGMENT. 

Old  Shylock's  famous  remark  has  had  a  recent  ful- 
fillment. Tlie  Outlook  for  August  20  contains  a  review 
of  a  new  ''History  of  the  People  of  Israel,"  by  the  infidel 
Professor  Cornill,  in  which  a  moral  judgment  of  the 
world  entertained  for  many  centuries  past  is  reversed. 
The  author  of  the  Book  of  Kings  pronounces  on  Ahab, 
king  of  Israel,  this  judgment:  "Ahab  did  yet  more  to 
provoke  Jehovah  the  God  of  Israel  to  anger,  than  all  the 
kings  of  Israel  that  were  before  him."  This  judgment 
has  been  approved  by  that  of  every  thoughtful  reader  of 
the  Book  of  Kings  from  that  day  to  this,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Professor  Cornill.  This  wise  writer  of  a  history 
of  Israel  pronounces  Ahab  "a  noble  and  large-hearted 
king."  When  men's  minds  become  thoroughly  perverted 
with  respect  to  the  evidences  in  favor  of  the  Bible,  it  is 
not  surprising  that  their  judgments  in  morals  become 
perverted  likewise.  The  next  thing  we  hear,  some  of  the 
crazy  critics  will  be  pronouncing  Judas  Iscariot  a  noble 
and  laree-hearted  man. 


[Sept.  24,  1898.] 

NOT    SIMILARLY    SITUATED. 

A  sermon,  by  George  Milligan,  on  "The  Descent  into 
Hades,"  is  published  in  the  Expository  Times  for  Sep- 
tember. The  preacher  assumes  that  Christ  went  during 
his  disembodied  state  and  preached  to  the  spirits  in  prison 
who   were   disobedient   in   the   days   of   Noah;   and   he 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  2>o7 

attempts  to  explain  why  these  sinners  are  specified  rather 
than  others,  by  saying: 

It  seems,  indeed,  as  a  fair  and  legitimate  inference,  that  men 
before  the  flood  are  only  brought  forward  by  the  apostle  as  a 
typical  case,  and  that  to  all  similarly  situated,  to  all  who  through 
no  fault  of  their  own  have,  during  their  lifetime,  not  heard  his 
message,  or  who  have  heard  it  under  circumstances  which  vir- 
tually gave  them  no  chance  of  accepting  it,  the  ministry  of 
Christ  has  been  extended,  is  still  extended,  after  death. 

This  is  the  common  mode  of  arguing  among  the 
advocates  of  the  second  probation.  Strange  that  men 
of  sense  can  not  see  the  fallacy  in  it.  If  it  were  a  fact 
that  Jesus  did  go  and  offer  a  second  probation  to  a  class 
of  disembodied  spirits,  who,  during  their  lifetime,  had 
not  heard  his  message,  or  wdio  heard  it  under  circum- 
stances which  gave  no  chance  of  accepting  it,  and  all  this 
through  no  fault  of  their  own,  w^e  then  might  safely  infer 
that  he  would  give  a  similar  chance  to  others  in  like 
circumstances.  But  this  is  not  what  he  did,  even  if  he 
did  what  these  critics  say  the  passage  in  Peter  means. 
Instead  of  going  to  such  a  class  as  they  describe,  he  went 
to  a  set  of  men  who,  among  all  the  w^icked  dead  of  ages 
gone,  had  enjoyed  about  the  best  chance  of  repentance, 
and  sinned  against  the  strongest  light.  They  w^ere  the 
men  whom  Xoah,  a  preacher  of  righteousness,  warned 
for  the  space  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  years,  but  wdio, 
in  spite  of  all  the  strivings  of  God's  Spirit  with  them, 
filled  the  earth  with  violence,  and  became  so  corrupt  that 
their  thoughts  were  only  evil  continually.  If  they  are 
taken  as  a  typical  case,  as  this  preacher  asserts,  then  they 
stand  as  the  types  of  the  worst  men  that  ever  lived  ;  and 
the  inference  should  be  that  the  very  worst  spirits  now 
writhing  under  the  sentence  of  God's  righteous  wrath, 
will  have  another  probation,  and  be  permitted  to  reject 


338  SHORT  ESSAYS  IN 

once  more  the  offered  mercy  of  God.  This  consideration 
is  alone  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  Romish  interpretation 
of  the  passage  about  preaching  to  the  disobedient  in  the 
days  of  Noah  is  false.  But  the  passage  is  very  con- 
venient for  the  purposes  of  many  false  theories,  and  I 
suppose  that  wliile  false  teachers  in  reference  to  the 
future  state,  are  found  among  men,  this  interpretation 
v^^ill  still  be  propagated. 


[Sept.  24,  1898.] 

THE    SCIENCE    OF    RELIGION. 

With  the  German  critics  religion  is  no  longer  a  matter 
of  revelation,  but  of  evolution  and  of  science.  A  German 
Professor,  C.  P.  Tiele,  has  recently  given  a  course  of 
lectures  in  Edinburgh  on  "The  Science  of  Religion," 
from  which  a  reviewer  quotes  the  following  passage : 

If  a  theology  does  not  compare  its  religions  system  with 
others,  and,  above  all,  test  it  by  the  laws  of  the  evolution  of 
religious  life  which  the  science  of  religion  alone  can  reveal,  it 
can  neither  wholly  comprehend  nor  fully  appreciate  its  own 
religion. 

According  to  this,  neither  Jesus  nor  Paul  wholly  com- 
prehended nor  fully  appreciated  their  own  religion  ;  for 
they  certainly  did  not  "test  it  by  the  laws  of  the  evolution 
of  religious  life,"  nor  did  they  study  the  "science  of  re- 
ligion" wdiich  alone  can  reveal  these  laws.  What  mis- 
fortune for  those  two  men  that  they  died  before  the 
modern  science  of  religion  was  born.  Or,  to  put  it  in 
a  different  form,  what  a  pity  that  our  nineteenth-century 
higher  critics  were  not  evolved  in  the  first  century  so 
that  they  might,  by  their  superior  scientific  attainments, 
have  saved  Jesus -and  Paul  from  the  mistakes  into  which 
they  fell.     "Lord,  give  us  a  good  conceit  of  ourselves." 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  339 

[Sept.  24,  1898.] 

OPHIR    AND    ALMUG-TREES. 

From  an  article  by  Prof.  Fritz  Hommel  in  the  Ex- 
pository Times  for  August,  following  one  by  Professor 
Cheyne  in  a  previous  number,  it  appears  that  these  two 
scholars,  wide  apart  in  their  conclusions  on  many  critical 
subjects,  agree  that  the  almug-trees  brought  from  Ophir 
by  Solomon  were,  as  formerly  supposed  by  some  com- 
mentators, the  sandalwood.  Professor  Hommel  has  also 
settled  it  in  his  own  mind,  that  the  region  called  Ophir 
was  eastern  Arabia,  though  the  name  applied  as  well  to 
the  opposite  coast  of  the  Persian  Gulf.  The  odorous 
wood,  which  was  then  a  great  curiosity,  and  is  still  a 
very  rare  product,  may  have  grown  in  that  region,  or  it 
may  have  been  there  only  as  an  article  of  trade,  produced 
elsewhere.  It  is  a  curious  fact  mentioned  by  a  recent 
French  Egyptologist,  that  pieces  of  sandalwood  have 
been  found  in  the  abdominal  cavities  of  mummies,  doubt- 
less placed  there  by  the  embalmers  because  of  its  fra- 
grance. 


[Sept.  24,  1898.] 
THE    SLAUGHTER    OF    THE    ^HDL\XITES. 

I  am  asked  to  explain  the  account  in  the  thirty-first 
chapter  of  Numbers  of  the  slaughter  of  the  married 
women  and  the  boys  taken  captive  when  the  men  of 
Midian  had  been  put  to  death. 

Such  a  slaughter,  if  effected  at  the  command  of  any 
human  being  without  express  authority  from  God,  would 
be  a  crime  of  the  deepest  dye;  but  if  commanded  of 
God,  it  would  be  a  matter  of  solemn  duty.  Of  course, 
all  infidels  must  denounce  it    for  they  denv  the  divine 


340  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

inspiration  of  Moses;  but  equally  as  a  matter  of  course, 
all  believers  must  say  it  was  right  because  commanded 
of  God. 

But  infidels  turn  upon  us  at  this  point  with  the 
assertion  that  a  just  God  could  not  have  commanded 
such  a  deed.  Whether  he  could  or  not,  depends  on  cir- 
cumstances. We  may  confidently  affirm  that  whatever 
God  would  himself  do  in  the  line  of  morals,  he  might, 
w^ith  propriety,  command  men  to  do.  But  he  destroyed 
the  antediluvians — men,  women  and  children.  He  did 
the  same  to  the  people  of  Sodom,  the  infants  among 
whom  were  as  guiltless  as  those  among  the  Midianites. 
He  also  destroys  by  pestilence  many  thousands  of 
innocents  every  year ;  and  nobody  but  ranting  atheists 
stop  to  criticize  him  for  'doing  so.  In  the  case  be- 
fore us,  the  women  put  to  death  w^ere  the  vile  crea- 
tures who  had  been  sent  by  their  husbands  and 
fathers  to  tempt  the  men  of  Israel  to  commit  adultery 
with  them  in  their  idolatrous  rites.  They  had  already 
caused  the  death  of  twenty- four  thousand  men,  and  if 
they  had  been  spared  and  turned  loose  in  the  camp,  there 
is  no  telling  how  many  more  would  have  been  ruined 
forever  by  their  sluttish  habits.  As  for  the  boys,  it  was 
God's  judgment  that  they  had  better  be  cut  off  in  child- 
hood than  to  live  and  propagate  their  kind.  Some  tribes 
of  men  reach  a  point  in  depravity  when  the  good  of  the 
world  requires  their  extermination.  God  alone  knows 
when  this  point  is  reached,  and  consequently  he  alone 
can  rightly  issue  the  decree  of  extermination ;  but  to 
deny  him  the  right  to  do  so  would  be  to  demand  his 
resignation  of  his  throne.  Undoubtedly,  then,  he  saw  that 
the  time  had  come  for  the  extermination  of  this  tribe  of 
Midianites,  and  hence  the  slaughter  of  the  boys.  It  was 
efferent  with  the   female  children.     If  taken   into   the 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  341 

families  of  the  Israelites  as  servants,  brought  up  under 
the  restraints  of  the  law,  and  then  intermarried  with  the 
sons  of  Israel,  they  could  be  themselves  redeemed,  and 
their  posterity  could  be  restrained.  These  considerations 
are  obvious,  and  they  are  sufficient  to  justify  God  in 
ordering  the  slaughter.  All  these  considerations  are 
applicable  to  similar  acts  of  divine  judgment  recorded 
in  other  parts  of  the  Scriptures. 


[Sept.  24.  1898.] 

IS  THERE  A  LORD'S  SUPPER? 

The  skepticism  of  our  restless  generation  seems  de- 
termined to  unsettle  everything  in  the  faith  and  practice 
of  the  church  of  God.  A  short  time  ago  it  might  have 
been  supposed  that  the  divine  origin  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
would  never  be  called  in  question.  There  were  great  dif- 
ferences, especially  among  Protestants,  as  to  the  frequency 
of  its  observance,  and  as  to  the  persons  who  should 
administer  it  and  participate  in  it ;  but  no  one.  I  suppose, 
dreamed  of  a  denial  that  it  was  instituted  by  our  Lord. 
Not  till  AIcGiffert's  "Apostolic  Age"  was  published,  in 
which  this  denial  was  boldly  proclaimed,  did  the  general 
public  in  this  country  learn  what  was  going  on  in  skep- 
tical circles  on  this  subject.  It  now  appears  that  ^IcGif- 
fert  obtained  his  clew  from  the  writings  of  recent  higher 
critics  in  Germany,  that  hot-bed  of  disbelief,  whence  the 
frogs  and  lizards  and  snakes  of  infidelity  are  constantly 
swarming.  In  the  August  number  of  the  Expositor  ]\Ii. 
G.  Wauchope  Stewart  interprets  to  English  readers  some 
views  on  this  subject  recently  published  in  Germany  by 
liarnack  and  Julicher,  both  of  whom  deny  that  the  Lord 
instituted  a  feast  in  memory  of  himself.  It  is  admitted 
that  Paul  says  he  did,  but  with  these  gentlemen  Paul  is 


342  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

no  authority.  It  is  admitted,  also,  that  Luke  says  he  did, 
according  to  our  present  text  of  Luke's  Gospel;  but  the 
genuineness  of  the  passage  is  called  in  question;  and 
even  if  Luke  did  write  what  we  now  read  on  this  point, 
he  got  his  information  from  Paul,  and,  of  course,  it  is 
not  reliable.  Briefly  stated  in  the  words  of  Julicher,  the 
position  is  this :  "The  Lord's  Supper  is  neither  a  riddle 
propounded  by  Jesus  to  his  disciples,  nor  an  important 
contribution  to  Christian  ethics,  nor  a  provision  in  any 
way  for  the  church  of  the  future.  Jesus  inaugurated 
nothing,  instituted  nothing.  He  had  no  thought  of  keep- 
ing his  memory  fresh." 

The  process  by  which  these  radical  assertions  are 
defended  is  too  elaborate,  and  the  argumentation  is  too 
flimsy  to  justify  me  in  copying  them  ;  and,  for  the  benefit 
of  the  well-balanced  and  sober-minded,  there  is  no  need 
that  I  should  do  so.  To  state  them  is  to  refute  them. 
But  there  are  some  indications  that  even  among  our- 
selves it  is  not  amiss  to  call  a  halt  in  regard  to  innova- 
tions in  the  celebration  of  this  ordinance.  It  is  axiomatic 
that  the  Lord,  who  instituted  ordinances  for  observance 
in  the  church,  knew  the  precise  manner  of  their  observ- 
ance which  would  best  secure  the  spiritual  ends  had  in 
view ;  and  consequently  every  loyal  soul  feels  impelled 
to  preserve  them  precisely  in  the  manner  of  their  first 
institution,  when  that  can  be  ascertained.  Now,  nothing 
is  clearer,  especially  from  Paul's  account  (i  Cor.  10:23, 
26),  than  that  thanks  were  given  for  the  loaf;  it  was 
broken  and  passed  to  the  partakers,  and  after  that  the 
cup  was  disposed  of  in  the  same  way.  But,  in  a  few  of 
our  churches,  this  order  has  been  recently  changed. 
Thanks  are  returned  for  the  loaf  and  the  cup  both,  and 
then  both  are  passed  at  one  time  to  the  participants.  And 
what  is  the  purpose  of  this  change?    There  is  none  that 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  343 

I  can  see,  except  to  save  time.  People  do  not  wish  to 
sit  very  long  remembering  in  silence  the  dying  love  of 
the  Lord,  especially  when  the  dinner-bells  begin  to  ring. 
For  such  motives  the  form  of  a  divine  ordinance  is 
changed ;  and  when  the  question  of  propriety  is  sent  to 
the  papers,  grave  editors  are  found  who  excuse  it  on  the 
plea  that  the  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth  life.  One 
step  farther,  and  an  old  practice,  of  which  Harnack  gives 
a  very  full  account,  may  be  revived,  by  which  water  was 
substituted  for  wine  in  some  churches  of  the  third  and 
fourth  centuries.  In  fact,  as  many  fantastic  tricks  have 
been  played  by  foolish  men  respecting  the  observance  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  as  in  reference  to  baptism  ;  and  our 
only  safety,  in  reference  to  either,  is  to  be  found  in  copy- 
ing precisely  the  form  instituted  by  divine  authority. 
Only  when  we  grow  wiser  than  Christ  can  we  be  sure 
that  any  change  of  his  appointments  will  produce  better 
spiritual  results. 


[Sept.  24,  1898.] 
THE    LORD'S    SUPPER    IX    LUKE 

I  have  more  than  once  made  reference  to  Professor 
McGiffert's  attempt  to  discredit  the  account  of  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Lord's  Supper  by  our  Lord  himself.  He 
made  the  assertion  that  the  words  in  Luke,  "This  do  in 
remembrance  of  me,"  are  absent  from  many  ancient 
manuscripts,  and  are,  therefore,  of  doubtful  genuineness. 
I  have  already  said  that  they  are  absent  from  only  one 
Greek  uncial,  D,  which  is  noted  for  its  many  variations 
from  the  current  text.  They  are  absent,  also,  from  only 
two  ancient  versions — the  Old  Latin  and  the  Curetonian 
Syriac.  This  furnishes  no  ground  for  a  serious  doubt, 
when  the  words  are  found  in  the  uncials  represented  by 


344 


SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 


A,  B,  N,  X,  Aleph  and  Delta,  besides  all  the  other  ver- 
sions and  the  cursive  manuscripts.  If  any  one  has  been 
in  the  least  disturbed  by  this  recent  attack  upon  this  holy 
institution,  let  him  rest  satisfied,  regarding  the  attack  as 
he  would  a  puff  of  foul  air  as  he  passes  along  the  high- 
way. McGiffert  was  indebted  to  the  German  radical 
Bliss  for  his  criticism. 


[Oct.  I.  1898.] 

OLD,    YET    EVER    NEW. 

I  have  before  me  a  batch  of  questions  belonging  to 
that  class  which  is  as  old  as  our  Gospels,  and  yet  is  new 
to  every  rising  generation.  The  time  perhaps  will  never 
come  when  they  will  cease  to  be  raised  and  to  demand 
answers  from  the  teachers  in  Zion.     Here  they  are : 

Will  you  please  answer  the  following  queries  in  your  column 
in  the  Standard  and  oblige  a  number  of  your  readers? 

1.  How  was  Jesus  the  son  of  David  if  he  was  not  the  real 
son  of  Joseph? 

2.  If  Mary  was  a  descendant  of  David,  where  is  the  Scrip- 
ture that  says   so? 

3.  How  do  you  account  for  the  apparent  contradictions  in 
the  genealogy  of   Christ,  as  given  by  Matthew  and  Luke? 

These  questions  are  asked  in  good  earnest.  "Seeker." 

I.  There  are  five  senses  in  Jewish  usage  in  which  a 
man  can  be  called  the  son  of  another:  first,  the  son  in 
our  sense  of  the  word:  second,  the  grandson,  or  a 
descendant  of  any  degree,  however  remote ;  third,  the 
levirate  son,  or  one  born  to  a  woman  whose  first  husband 
died  childless,  and  who  was  taken  to  wife  by  his  brother. 
This  child  was  called  son  of  the  deceased  husband,  and 
was  his  heir.  Fourth,  son-in-law.  The  Hebrews,  having 
no  word  for  son-in-law,  called  him  son.  So  King  Saul 
constantly  addressed  David.    Fifth,  one  born  in  wedlock, 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  345 

but  not  the  son  of  the  husband.  In  such  an  instance  the 
laws  of  our  own  country  hold  him  to  be  the  son  of  his 
mother's  husband,  and  he  inherits  the  husband's  estate, 
unless  by  legal  proceedings  against  the  wife  his  claim  is 
set  aside.  In  this  last  sense  Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph, 
and  Joseph's  heir.  As  Joseph  was  in  the  direct  line  of 
the  inheritance  of  David's  throne,  the  inheritance  passed 
to  Jesus  after  Joseph's  death.  It  is  this  fact  that  gives 
value  to  Matthew's  genealogy.  It  proves  that  Jesus  was 
of  the  right  genealogy  to  inherit  the  throne  of  David,  as 
he  must  have  been  in  order  to  be  the  promised  ^lessiah. 
By  this  line,  however,  Jesus  did  not  inherit  the  blood  of 
David,  which  was  also  a  necessary  condition. 

2.  That  Alary  was  a  descendant  of  David  is  proved 
by  the  \vords  of  the  angel  Gabriel,  who,  after  telling 
Mary  that  she  should  bear  a  son  without  a  human  father, 
said  of  him,  "The  Lord  God  shall  give  unto  him  the 
throne  of  his  father  David."  Xow,  Alary  could  under- 
stand these  words  only  on  the  supposition  that  she  was 
herself  a  daughter  of  David,  making  her  son  a  son  of 
David.  Through  his  mother,  then.  Jesus  inherited  the 
blood  of  David;  but  this  line  of  inheritance  did  not  bring 
him  the  throne  of  David;  for  inheritance  under  the  law 
of  Aloses  was  through  the  paternal  line  of  descent,  and 
not  through  the  maternal.  But  through  Joseph,  his  legal 
but  not  his  real  father,  though  he  received  not  the  blood 
of  David,  he  inherited  the  throne.  The  evidence  of  both 
lines  was  necessary  to  the  proof  of  his  Messiahship. 

3.  The  two  lines  given  respectively  by  Matthew  and 
Luke  differ  as  far  back  as  David,  because  the  paternal 
line  descends  from  Solomon,  and  the  maternal  from  Sol- 
omon's brother,  Xathan.  The  two  unite  by  intermarriage 
in  Shealtiel  and  Zerubbabel,  and  then  separate  again  in 
two  sons  of  Zerubbabel,  Abiud  and  Rhesa.     They  again 


346  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

unite  by  marriage  when  Joseph,  the  last  of  the  paternal 
line,  is  married  to  Mary,  the  daughter  of  Heh,  the  last 
of  the  maternal  line.  Joseph  is  here  called  the  son  of 
Heli,  because  he  was  his  son-in-law. 

If  I  am  asked  how  I  know  that  Luke's  is  the  maternal 
line,  I  answer  that  only  on  this  supposition  has  it  any 
value  at  all.  It  certainly  does  trace  the  blood  of  David 
through  his  son  Nathan,  down  to  Heli,  and  also  to 
Joseph,  if  Joseph  was  the  natural  son  of  Heli;  but  as 
this  blood  line  did  not  go  down  to  Jesus,  it  could  not 
prove  that  Jesus  was  a  descendant  of  David ;  and  as 
Nathan  was  not  the  heir  to  David's  throne,  it  could  not 
prove  Jesus  to  be  the  heir  of  David.  But  it  is  wholly 
incredible  that  Luke  would  take  so  much  space  to  give  a 
genealogy  which  could  prove  nothing  for  Jesus,  and, 
therefore,  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  Luke's  is 
the  line,  without  which  the  evidence  that  Jesus  is  the 
promised  seed  of  David  would  be  incomplete. 

In  my  volume  on  "The  Credibility  and  Inspiration  of 
the  New  Testament  Books,"  the  details  of  these  two  lines 
of  genealogy  are  traced  out  with  great  care,  and  the 
criticisms  of  skeptics  are  refuted.  For  further  informa- 
tion I  refer  to  that  volume. 


[Oct.  8,  1898.] 

DIVINE    HEALING    AGAIN. 

My  absence  from  home  during  the  month  of  August 
accounts  for  the  delay  in  publishing  the  following  very 
respectful  communication.  I  can  not  pronounce  it  ''a 
crank's  opinion,"  for  it  has  none  of  the  self-conceit 
always  characteristic  of  a  crank.  It  is  evidently  the 
serious  expression  of  real  convictions,  and  it  deserves 
kindly  consideration : 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  347 

ClXCIXXATI,    O.,    Aug.    2.    1898. 

Bro.  McGarvev  : — The  article  in  last  week's  Standard,  on 
divine  healing,  touches  upon  a  subject  in  which  I  have  recently 
become  interested,  and  I  am  constrained  to  ask  space  in  your 
columns  for  just  a  little  of  what  you  may  term  a  crank's  opin- 
ion. I  am  a  member  of — and  love,  as  much  as  it  is  possible  for 
a  true  Christian  to  love  a  church — dear  old  Central  of  this  city. 

I  said  I  have  recently,  etc.,  but  ever  since  I  have  been  old 
enough  to  read  the  Xcw  Testament  with  any  understanding,  1 
have  felt  that  if  Christians  would  put  themselves  in  the  same 
attitude  toward  Christ  as  did  those  who  came  to  him  for  heal- 
ing when  he  was  on  earth  in  the  flesh,  it  could  not  be  otherwise 
than  that  he  would  answer  their  petitions  as  he  did  then. 

Are  we  not  told  in  the  Word  that  "he  is  the  same  yesterday, 
to-day  and  forever"  ?  "Whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in  my  name." 
etc.  (John  14:13-16).  Again:  "Is  any  among  you  sick?  Let 
him  call  for  the  elders  of  the  church  :  and  let  them  pray  over 
him,  anointing  him  with  oil  in  the  name  of  the  Lord;  and  the 
prayer  of  faith  shall  save  the  sick,  and  the  Lord  shall  raise  him 
up"  (Jas.  5  :  14,  15).  Nowhere  in  the  Word  can  I  find  a  promise 
that  God  will  bless  "means." 

There  is  a  mission  in  this  city  where  divine  healing  is  taught 
as  a  part  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ ;  but  not  by  "divine  heal- 
ers," for  they  teach  that  God,  and  God  only,  is  the  healer.  Xor 
do  they  teach  that  divine  healing  is  the  most  important  part  of 
the  gospel.  Over  and  over  again  do  they  urge  their  hearers  to 
seek  first  the  divine  Healer,  the  God  of  love  and  wisdom  and 
might;  to  repent  and  restore,  as  far  as  it  is  possible  to  do  so, 
before  they  expect  him  to  answer  their  prayers!  I  have  not 
witnessed  any  healings  through  their  prayers,  but  have  heard 
probably  a  dozen  or  more  testimonies  from  those  whom  I  could 
not  consider  other  than  reliable  witnesses ;  and  my  faith  has 
been  so  strengthened  by  their  teaching  that  I  have  received 
several  direct  and  immediate  answers  to  my  own  prayers,  no- 
tably one,  when  I  was  the  victim  of  an  accident,  the  result  of 
which  all.  who  have  had  experience  in  such,  say  is  necessarily 
very  painful.  Of  course,  I  know  that  it  would  have  been,  was, 
in  fact,  until  I  lifted  my  heart  in  a  prayer  that  I  could  not  have 
put  into  words,  but,  which  the  Father  understood  and  answered. 
V\'hile  my  friends  marveled  at  the  "wonderful"  fact  that  I  did 
not  suffer,  if  I  tell  them  it  was  the  result  of  answer  to  prayer, 


348  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

that  God  did  it,  they  look  at  me  as  if  they  think  me  crazy.  Why 
is  it  that  so  few  Christians  really  believe  that  the  sincere  prayer 
of  faith  is  answered,  for  that  is  just  what  it  all  amounts  to? 
Truly,  we  Christians  need  teaching.  g.  t.  s. 

The  writer's  mind  is  evidently  controlled  by  the  one 
consideration  set  forth  in  her  second  paragraph,  where 
she  says :  "Ever  since  I  have  been  old  enough  to  read  the 
New  Testament  with  any  understanding,  I  have  felt  that 
if  Christians  would  put  themselves  in  the  same  attitude 
toward  Christ  as  did  those  who  came  to  him  for  healing 
when  he  was  on  earth  in  the  flesh,  it  could  not  be  other- 
wise than  that  he  would  answer  their  petitions  as  he  did 
then."  This  feeling  rests  with  her  on  the  fact  that  Christ 
is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day  and  forever,  and  upon  his 
promises  to  answer  prayer.  It  is  a  feeling  quite  com- 
mon with  readers  of  the  New  Testament  who  have  not 
learned  to  discriminate  between  the  miraculous  and  the 
providential. 

The  fact  that  Christ  is  an  unchangeable  being  is 
sufficient  proof  that  he  will  always  act  on  the  same 
unchangeable  principles,  but  not  that  he  will  always  act 
in  the  same  way.  It  is  proof  that  he  will  always  have 
compassion  on  the  sick,  but  not  that  he  will  always 
restore  them  to  health  in  this  world.  Furthermore,  the 
fact  that  he  healed  the  very  few  sick  who  were  in  all 
Palestine,  and  none  outside  that  little  district,  if  we 
except  the  Canaanite  woman's  daughter,  by  a  touch  or  a 
word,  is  no  ground  for  supposing  that  he  will  now  heal 
all  in  the  whole  world  who  will  call  upon  him,  and  thus 
put  an  end  to  disease  and  death  so  far  as  his  kingdom 
extends.  He  never  proposed  to  interfere  in  this  way 
with  his  Father's  decree,  ''Dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust 
thoti  shalt  return." 

It  is  true  that  Christ  promised  to  answer  prayer,  and 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  349 

that  some  of  his  utterances  on  this  subject  are  so  unhm- 
ited  in  their  terms  as  to  have  the  appearance  of  being 
unhmited  in  reahty ;  but  we  must  remember  that  one  of 
the  apostles  was  afflicted  with  a  malady  which  was  so 
painful  and  irritating-  that  he  called  it  a  messenger  of 
Satan  to  buffet  him,  yet  his  earnest  prayers  to  Christ  for 
healing  left  him  still  in  his  affliction.  These  promises 
are  to  be  construed  in  a  general  and  not  in  a  universal 
sense.  The  same  is  true  in  the  matter  of  life  and  death. 
Christ  delivered  Peter  out  of  the  hand  of  Herod  when 
all  the  world  would  have  said  it  was  impossible,  and 
when  the  church,  though  they  prayed  for  him,  prayed 
not  for  his  deliverance,  but  for  the  steadfastness  of  his 
faith  in  the  death  which  appeared  inevitable ;  but  when 
the  elder  James  was  taken  by  the  same  Herod  a  few  days 
earlier,  though  he  doubtless  was  also  a  subject  of  the 
prayers  of  the  church,  Christ  permitted  Herod  to  cut  off 
his  heaa.  A  miracle  was  wrought  in  the  one  instance  for 
special  reasons.  In  the  other  the  ordinary  course  of 
providence  prevailed.  So  also  in  the  martyrdom  of 
Stephen,  and  of  many  other  saints,  both  male  and  female. 
Ordinarily  the  servants  of  God  are  exposed  to  disease 
and  death,  precisely  as  other  men  are ;  but  when  Christ 
desires  that  a  man  shall  live,  all  the  men  on  earth  can 
not  kill  him. 

"A   Christian  can   not   die  before  his   time ; 
The  Lord's  appointment  is  the  servant's  hour ;" 

yet  it  is  not  in  the  prayers  of  the  servant  to  determine 
the  hour,  but  in  the  inscrutable  will  of  the  ^Master. 

It  is  true,  also,  that  in  the  passage  which  our  sister 
cites  from  the  apostle  James,  sick  disciples  w^ere  directed 
to  send  for  the  ciders  of  the  church,  that  they  might 
pray  over  them,  anoint  them  with  oil,  and  raise  them  up  ; 
but  everv  reader  of  the  New  Testament  should  know  that 


350  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

this  was  written  when  many  elders  of  churches  possessed 
the  miraculous  power  of  healing,  wdiich  was  imparted  to 
them  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  an  apostle.  To 
argue  from  this  that  elders  of  the  church,  or  anybody 
else,  can  do  the  same  in  the  present  day,  is  to  leave  out 
of  view  the  one  thing  that  enabled  them  to  do  it  then  ; 
that  is,  the  imposition  of  apostolic  hands  with  prayer  for 
this  gift. 

The  practical  working  of  this  precept  of  James,  even 
in  the  apostolic  age,  is  modified  by  actual  facts  which  are 
too  often  overlooked.  Paul  had  the  power  to  heal  by  a 
word  or  a  touch,  and  he  used  it  on  proper  occasions ;  but 
on  one  of  his  journeys  through  the  province  of  Asia 
he  left  Trophimus  sick  at  Miletus  (2  Tim.  4:20).  On 
another  occasion,  Epaphroditus  was  sick  "nigh  unto 
death."  He  had  been  sent  to  Rome  by  the  brethren  of 
Philippi  to  minister  to  Paul's  wants  as  a  prisoner,  and 
he  incurred  this  sickness  in  consequence  of  the  journey. 
Paul  w^as,  therefore,  doubly  sorrowful  at  the  prospect  of 
his  death ;  but  he  did  not  heal  him.  He  did  not  anoint 
him  with  oil,  nor  raise  him  up  (Phil.  2:  25,  30).  Again. 
Timothy  was  an  invalid  from  some  disease  of  the  stom- 
ach ;  yet  Paul  neither  healed  him  nor  told  him  to  pray 
for  healing,  but  advised  him  to  take  a  little  wine  as  a 
tonic.  These  facts  show  plainly  that  the  precept  of 
James  was  exceptional  and  temporary,  even  in  the  age 
of  the  apostles,  and  that  the  later  practice  of  Paul  is  to 
be  looked  upon  as  the  permanent  order  of  the  kingdom 
of  Christ. 

Finally,  there  is  a  negative  evidence  on  this  subject 
which  in  itself  is  conclusive:  unlike  these  modern  advo- 
cates of  ''divine  healing,"  the  apostles  were  never  known 
to  go  about  exhorting  people  to  come  forward  for  the 
healing  of  the  body.     They  effected  miraculous  cures  in 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  35i 

a  few  instances,  "as  a  sign  to  the  unbelievers,"  but  they 
never  proclaimed,  either  to  saints  or  sinners,  that  the 
healing  of  all  diseases  was  a  part  of  the  gospel  which 
they  were  sent  to  preach.  These  so-called  faith-cure 
churches,  therefore,  and  the  preachers  who  officiate  in 
them  as  "divine  healers,"  or  what  not,  are  not  modeled 
after  the  apostolic  type,  but  are  misleading  the  people  by 
humbuggery.  Fortunately  for  the  people,  the  great 
majority  of  them  have  too  much  good  sense  to  be  hum- 
bugged by  a  device  so  transparent. 


[Oct.  15.  1898.] 

CHEDORLAOMER'S    EXPEDITIOX. 

A  writer  in  the  Expository  Times  for  August  sets 
forth  the  state  of  critical  opinion  in  Germany  with 
respect  to  Hommel's  assault  on  destructive  criticism  in 
his  ''Ancient  Hebrew  Tradition."  He  tells  us  that  since 
the  appearance  of  that  book  "a  copious  stream  of  litera- 
ture has  flowed,  dealing  with  its  merits  and  demerits," 
and  he  places  the  highest  estimate  on  two  reviews,  one 
by  Zimmern,  and  the  other  by  ]\leinhold.  The  former 
admits  that  Hommel  is  right  on  the  nomenclature  of 
Genesis  14,  and  also  that  such  a  campaign  as  is  described 
in  the  chapter  is  "historically  quite  conceivable  ;"  but  he 
insists  that  this  does  not  prove  that  the  campaign  actually 
took  place.  Of  course  it  does  not.  To  prove  that  any 
event  is  possible  is  quite  distinct  from  proving  that  it 
occurred.  Nevertheless,  Hommel's  victory  over  the  de- 
structive critics  is  still  complete :  for  they  contended  that 
no  such  campaign  could  have  taken  place — that  an  Elam- 
ite  king,  under  the  existing  state  of  affairs,  could  not 
have  made  an  expedition  so  far  to  the  west  and  south  as 
Chedorlaomer  is  said  to  have  done.     When,  then,  it  is 


352 


SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 


demonstrated  that  he  could  have  done  so,  and  when  the 
names  of  himself  and  his  subordinates  are  proved  to  be 
suited  to  the  times  and  conditions,  the  attack  upon  the 
author  of  Genesis  is  broken,  and  the  assailants  are  put 
to  flight. 

The  same  writer  reports  Zimmern  as  denying  that 
Hommel  has  proved  the  actual  existence  of  Abraham, 
or  that  he  was  heir  to  a  primitive  revelation.  But  Hom- 
mel did  not  attempt  to  do  either ;  and  as  to  the  latter,  it 
would  be  very  foolish  in  Hommel,  or  any  one  else,  to 
attempt  to  prove  a  primitive  revelation  by  archaeology, 
the  only  line  of  evidence  which  Hommel  employed.  As 
well  try  to  prove  it  by  mathematics. 

When  the  critics  whom  Hommel  rebuked  are  brought 
to  such  straits  as  these  in  order  to  make  a  show  of 
defense,  it  is  very  clear  that  they  are  badly  crippled. 


[Oct.  22,  1898.1 

HOSPITALITY    TO    NEW    TRUTH. 

There  are  certain  men  who  think  themselves  called 
upon  to  emphasize  the  importance  of  giving  a  hospitable 
welcome  to  all  new  truth.  I  am  greatly  in  favor  of  this 
myself,  and  I  would  join  with  these  brethren  in  their  cry 
if  I  thought  there  was  any  occasion  for  it  among  those 
who  read  what  I  write.  There  is  nothing  I  delight  in  so 
much  as  new  truth.  Not  that  there  is  any  truth  new  in 
the  absolute  sense  of  the  word,  but  that  there  are  truths 
new  to  me  when  I  discover  them — new  because  of  my 
previous  ignorance  of  them.  I  have  been  searching  for 
new  truths  all  my  life;  and  when  I  find  one  of  special 
importance,  I  am  like  the  wise  men  when  the  star 
appeared  the  second  time,  I  rejoice  with  exceeding  great 
joy.     Hospitable  to  new  truth?     My  door  stands  wide 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  353 

open,  winter  and  summer,  to  let  it  in.  I  am  not  ac- 
quainted with  any  man  of  sense  who  differs  from  me  in 
this  particular;  if  I  were,  I  would  send  him  a  copy  of 
the  Christian-Eraiigclist,  or  some  such  paper,  occasion- 
ally, that  he  might  read  the  fine  exhortations  which  are 
being  written  on  that  subject. 

But  before  I  bow  anything  new  into  my  sanctum,  I 
must  know  that  it  is  a  truth.  Aly  welcome  for  new  truth 
is  not  more  hearty  than  my  detestation  for  error,  whether 
new  or  old.  Especially  do  I  abhor  old  error  when  it 
steals  the  cap  of  truth  and  comes  smiling  up  to  my  front 
door.  I  must  know  my  guest  before  I  give  him  a  hearty 
welcome  ;  and  he  must  excuse  me  for  letting  him  stand 
at  the  door  till  I  read  his  credentials. 

The  special  reference  of  the  writers  to  whom  I  refer 
is  to  matters  of  Biblical  criticism.  I  would  have  every 
man  who  finds  truth  which  he  clearly  perceives  to  be 
truth,  to  welcome  it.  I  admire  the  caution  of  those  who 
do  not  yet  know  whether  that  which  they  hear  is  truth 
or  error,  in  holding  a  non-committal  position ;  but  I 
w^ould  despise  the  man  who,  having  thoroughly  studied 
the  subject,  hesitates  to  assail  what  he  knows  to  be  false 
and  injurious.  This  is  the  stand  that  I  have  taken,  and 
I  fight  not  like  one  beating  the  air. 


[Xov.  12,  1898.] 

WHAT    WAS    PROA^ED    BY    MIRACLES. 

To  deny  the  reality  of  miracles  has  been  character- 
istic of  infidelity  in  all  ages :  but  to  admit  their  reality, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  deny  their  evidential  value,  is  a 
characteristic  of  semi-rationalism.  The  latter  denial  is 
not  uncommon  among  the  critics  of  the  new  school  who 
claim  to  be  ''evangelical."     A  brother  writes  me   from 


354  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Minnesota  that  a  Methodist  preacher  in  his  town  recently 
said  in  a  sermon  that  "the  miracles  of  Christ  were  no 
evidence  of  his  divinity,  since  many  others  had  per- 
formed as  many,  as  varied  and  as  great  miracles."  There 
are  not  a  few  who  agree  with  this  preacher,  and  who  also 
say  that  it  would  be  easier  to  convince  men  of  the  claims 
of  Christ  if  the  accounts  of  miracles  were  out  of  the 
way.  It  is  worth  our  while,  then,  to  occasionally  raise 
the  question,  What  did  the  miracles  prove?  Or,  if  you 
please,  What  do  the  miracles,  supposing  them  to  have 
been  wrought,  now  prove? 

The  argument  of  this  Minnesota  preacher,  fully  ex- 
pressed, is  that  the  miracles  of  Christ  do  not  prove  his 
divinity,  because,  if  they  did,  they  would  prove  the 
divinity  of  every  other  man  who  wrought  miracles,  which 
is  an  absurdity.  His  argument  would  be  conclusive  if 
the  mere  working  of  miracles  were  proof  of  the  divinity 
of  him  who  works  them  ;  but  this  can  be  affirmed  by  no 
one  who  thinks  carefully  and  speaks  accurately. 

A  miracle  wrought  by  a  man  is  an  exercise  of  divine 
power  entrusted  to  the  man  for  some  divine  purpose. 
When  it  is  wrought  as  a  mere  act  of  mercy,  the  purpose 
may  be  no  other  than  to  manifest  the  mercy  of  God.  But 
it  is  doubtful  whether  a  miracle  was  ever  wrought  for 
this  purpose  alone.  Certainly  some  ulterior  purpose  can 
usually  be  discerned.  The  miracles  of  Jesus  were  nearly 
all  of  this  class;  but  to  say  that  they  were  wrought  for 
the  single  purpose  of  showing  divine  compassion  toward 
the  sick,  and  those  oppressed  by  the  devil,  would  be  to 
ignore  a  purpose  which  is  easily  discerned,  which  is 
openly  avowed  by  Christ  himself,  and  which  is  of  much 
greater  importance.  When  he  said  to  the  paralytic,  who 
was  let  down  before  him  through  the  roof,  "Son,  thy 
sins  are  forgiven  thee/'  he  was  charged  with  blasphemy. 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  355 

because  God  alone  can  forgive  sins.  He  then  made  this 
argument:  "Which  is  easier  to  say,  Thy  sins  are  for- 
given; or  to  say,  Arise,  take  up  thy  bed  and  walk?  Uut 
that  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath  power  on 
earth  to  forgive  sins,  he  saith  unto  the  man.  Rise,  take 
up  thy  bed  and  go  to  thy  house."  Now,  how  did  this 
prove  that  he  had  power  to  forgive  sins?  Our  Minne- ( 
sota  preacher  would  say,  if  it  proved  that  he  had  power 
to  forgive  sins,  it  proved  that  all  others  who  wrought 
miracles  could  likewise  forgive  sins.  And  so  it  would 
if  the  naked  act  of  healing  contained  the  proof.  But 
Jesus  set  up  the  claim  that  he  could  forgive  sins,  and  he 
wrought  this  miracle  in  proof  of  the  claim.  If  the  claim 
was  a  false  one,  then  God  permitted  his  power  to  be  used 
in  support  of  a  false  claim,  which  is  inconceivable!  God 
can  not  be  a  party  to  deception  ;  and,  therefore,  when  his 
power  is  used  in  proof  of  any  proposition,  that  proposi- 
tion must  be  true.  On  this  ground  alone  can  we  regard 
the  argument  of  Jesus  as  conclusive  ;  but  on  this  ground 
it  is  vindicated  beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt  to  all  who 
believe  in  the  moral  perfection  of  God.  Xow,  if  the 
apostles  and  others  who  wrought  miracles  had  wrought 
them  in  support  of  the  claim  that  they  had  power  to  for- 
give sins,  they  would  have  proved  it.  But  they  never  set 
up  this  claim. 

These  considerations  prepare  the  way  for  seeing  how 
the  miracles  of  Jesus  proved  his  divinity,  and  how  sim- 
ilar miracles  wrought  by  others  did  not  prove  their 
divinity.  When  Jesus  first  began  to  work  miracles,  he 
did  not  connect  them  with  any  specific  claim  with  refer- 
ence to  himself,  further  than  to  support  his  proclamation 
that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  at  hand.  He  left  men 
for  awhile  to  form  their  own  judgments  as  to  who  he 
was.     But  at  the  close  of  the  first  vear  of  his  ministry, 


356  SHORT   ESSAYS  IN 

while  on  a  visit  to  Jerusalem,  he  formally  procladmed 
himself  the  Son  of  God,  and  held  up  the  miracles  which 
he  wrought  as  proof  of  that  claim.  In  his  speech, 
recorded  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  John,  he  first  sets  forth, 
in  all  its  fullness,  the  powers  and  prerogatives  which  had 
been  conferred  on  him  as  the  Son  of  God  (vs.  19-29), 
and  then  arrays  the  witnesses  on  whom  he  depends  for 
the  support  of  his  claim.  He  appeals  first  to  the  testi- 
mony of  John,  and  then  says :  "But  the  witness  which 
I  have  is  greater  than  that  of  John :  for  the  works  which 
the  Father  hath  given  me  to  accomplish,  the  very  works 
which  I  do,  bear  witness  of  me  that  the  Father  hath 
sent  me."  They  could  have  borne  no  evidence  of  the 
claim  which  he  had  just  set  up  had  it  not  been  pro- 
pounded in  connection  with  them.  When,  just  one  year 
previous  to  this,  he  first  appeared  in  Jerusalem,  and  had 
not  yet  openly  proclaimed  himself  the  Son  of  God,  Nico- 
demus  saw  his  miracles,  and  argued  logically  from  them 
as  the  matter  then  stood,  saying,  "Master,  we  know  that 
thou  art  a  teacher  come  from  God ;  because  no  man  can 
do  the  miracles  which  thou  doest  except  God  be  with 
him."  The  same  logic  demanded  the  conclusion  that  he 
was  the  Son  of  God,  when,  in  connection  with  these  and 
later  miracles,  Jesus  formally  set  forth  that  claim. 

But  our  Lord  went  further.  He  not  only  held  that 
his  miracles  were  proof  of  his  divinity,  but  he  went  so 
far  as  to  admit  that,  without  them,  their  evidence,  those 
who  rejected  his  claim  would  have  been  blameless.  He 
said:  "H  I  had  not  done  among  them  the  works  which 
none  other  did,  they  had  not  had  sin :  but  now  they  have 
both  seen  and  hated  both  me  and  my  Father"  (John 
15:24). 

Miracle-working  was  then  a  necessary  proof  of  the 
claim   of  Jesus,   and   it   is  no   less   necessary   now   than 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  357 

it  was  at  the  beg-inning-.  True,  thoughtful  men,  if 
we  had  them  not,  might  come  to  beheve,  as  many  do, 
that  he  was  a  great  and  good  man  ;  but  this  very  behef 
is  infidehty  ;  and  men  would  be  unable  to  logically  reach 
any  other,  had  he  not  manifested  the  divine  power  which 
dwelt  within  him  by  visible  and  tangible  demonstrations. 


[Xov.  5.  1898.] 
RAXDO.AI    TALK    BY    AX    IXFIDEL, 

A  brother  has  sent  me  a  clipping  from  the  Broicn 
Book,  a  periodical  published  in  Boston  that  boasts  a  cir- 
culation of  425,000,  which  is  so  characteristic  of  many 
present-day  infidels  that  I  think  it  worthy  of  a  passing 
notice.    The  writer  begins  with  the  following  paragraph : 

We  are  watching  with  considerable  interest,  nowadays,  the 
position  of  the  church.  \Vhether  we  be  insiders  or  outsiders, 
we  are  fearing  for  its  future.  Like  the  feudal  system  of  the 
early  centuries,  like  the  monasteries  of  the  ^Middle  Ages,  and 
like  the  witchcrafts  and  inquisitions  of  later  days,  the  world 
seems  to  be  outgrowing  it.  It  no  longer  has  the  grasp  upon  the 
general  life  of  the  people  that  it  once  had. 

I  have  no  doubt  that  the  first  statement  in  this 
paragraph  is  true.  Lifidels  have  always  watched  with 
considerable  interest  the  position  of  the  church.  The 
church's  position  is  that  "the  fearful  and  unbelieving 
and  abominable  and  murderers  and  fornicators  and  sor- 
cerers and  idolaters  and  all  liars  shall  have  their  part  in 
the  lake  that  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone,  which  is 
the  second  death."  If  this  is  true,  the  infidel  and  all  his 
pals  that  are  here  classed  with  him  have  a  right  to  watch 
the  position  of  the  church  with  considerable  interest. 

The  next  statement,  that  we,  whether  insiders  or  out- 
siders, are  fearing  for  its  future,  is  not  trtie  of  "insiders," 


358  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

but  it  is  of  "outsiders  ;"  for  if  the  future  of  the  church 
shall  be  such  as  its  Lord  and  Founder  predicted,  well 
may  they  fear  for  that  future.  But  this  writer  pretends 
to  fear  that  the  world  is  outgrowing  the  church,  and 
about  to  leave  it  behind,  as  it  has  left  behind  some  of  the 
superstitions  of  the  past.  He  is  like  a  man  growing 
blind,  who  thinks  that  the  sun  is  getting  dim.  It  is  the 
church,  if  he  only  knew  it,  and  not  the  world,  that  has 
outgrown  monasteries,  witchcrafts,  inquisitions,  etc. 
Protestant  bodies  have  the  credit  in  history  of  leading 
every  state  in  Christendom  out  of  these  various  things, 
and  of  forcing  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  to  abandon 
them. 

The  idea  that  the  church  no  longer  has  the  grasp 
upon  the  general  life  of  the  people  that  it  once  had,  is 
the  offspring  of  the  writer's  ignorance,  and  willful  igno- 
rance at  that.  A  much  larger  per  cent.  of.  the  population 
of  the  United  States  arc  now  members  of  Protestant 
churches  than  there  was  fifty  years  ago;  immense  in- 
roads have  been  made  by  Protestantism  into  Roman 
Catholic  countries,  and  millions  of  people  who  fifty  years 
ago  were  idolaters  are  now  humble  believers  in  Christ. 
More  money  is  given  in  one  year  to  religious  purposes 
than  was  given  formerly  in  twenty,  and  the  increased 
circulation  of  copies  of  the  Bible  is  one  of  the  wonders 
of  the  modern  world.  This  infidel  writer  is  down  in  a 
well,  where  he  is  unable  to  see  in  any  direction  but  one, 
and  he  thinks  that  the  sun  has  gone  down  when  it  ceases 
to  shine  into  his  hole.  He  is  like  the  man  in  a  steamboat 
who  looked  through  a  window  and  thought  that  the  bank 
of  the  river  was  sliding  away  behind  him. 

Having  settled  it  that  the  church  is  declining,  our 
wise  man  says:  'T  like  to  believe  that  the  reason  for  this 
decline  of  the  church  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  world,  in 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  359 

its  every-day  working-clothes,  has  grown  better  and  a 
bit  wiser." 

Undoubtedly  the  world  has  grown  better  and  a  little 
wiser.  It  used  to  have  a  great  many  more  inhdels  in  it 
than  it  has  now,  and  it  owes  this  change  to  the  church. 
It  has  a  smaller  percentage  of  ignorant  people  than  it 
once  had,  and  it  owes  this  to  the  schools  and  colleges 
which  have  been  established  by  the  church.  It  has  a 
greater  number  of  penitentiaries  in  which  to  shut  up 
infidels  when  they  commit  crimes  ;  and  it  is  beginning  to 
seriously  consider  the  best  way  to  get  rid  of  such  infidels 
as  Czolgosz,  cf  al.,  before  they  achieve  the  logical  results 
of  their  infidelity.  The  anarchistic  and  Haymarket 
brothers  and  sisters  of  this  infidel  writer  are  now  more 
closely  watched  than  formerly,  and  this  shows  that  the 
world  has  grown  "a  bit  wiser."  And  it  has  grown  wiser 
because  the  church  has  been  its  teacher. 

As  an  evidence  that  the  world  is  growdng  wiser,  our 
essayist  says,  "]\Ien  no  longer  fear  God,  or  Satan,  or  the 
decrees  of  the  church,  or  threats  of  eternal  punishment." 
To  be  truthfr.l,  he  should  have  said  sonic  men  no  longer 
fear  these  things.  But  in  saying  this  he  would  only  have 
said  what  has  always  been  true  ;  for  we  read  in  one  of 
the  Lord's  parables  of  a  man  who  neither  feared  God 
nor  regarded  man  ;  and  away  back  in  the  Old  Testament 
Ave  read  of  men  who  had  not  the  fear  of  God  before 
them.  As  for  Satan,  instead  of  fearing  him,  many  men, 
especially  infidels,  have  always  been  so  thick  with  him 
that  he  leads  them  captive  at  his  will,  and  hides  eternal 
punishment  from  them  until  they  drop  into  it.  All 
thoughtful  men,  however,  see  so  plainly  the  work  of 
Satan  in  the  lives  of  infidels,  and  are  so  horrified  by  it, 
that  they  hate  the  devil  and  try  to  keep  him  at  a  distance. 
They  observe  that  the  devil  plays   'possum  with  unbe- 


36o  SHORT   ESSAYS  IN 

lievers,  convincing  them  that  he  is  dead  till  he  gets  them 
where  he  wants  them. 

This  writer  for  425,000  readers  goes  on  with  much 
more  of  the  same  sort,  but  this  sort  has  become  such 
commonplace  stuff  that  intelligent  people  are  not  to  be 
fooled  by  it.    You  can't  catch  an  old  bird  with  chaff. 


[March  22,  1902.] 

AN   OMNISCIENT   PROFESSOR. 

Bro.  Mohorter,  of  Boston,  sends  me  the  following 
clipping  from  a  recent  issue  of  the  Boston  Herald: 

The  Rev.  George  Hodges,  dean  of  the  Episcopal  Theological 
School  in  Cambridge,  Mass.,  preaching  before  University  of 
Pennsylvania  students  in  Houston  Hall  on  "The  Temptation," 
said :  "Christ  did  not  meet  Satan  in  the  wilderness,  and  there 
was  no  prodigal  son.  But  the  story  of  the  temptation  and  the 
story  of  the  prodigal  contain  the  greatest  truths  which  have  ever 
been  told.  Fiction  may  be  more  full  of  truth  than  facts,  and 
poetry  and  pictures,  products  of  the  imagination,  may  represent 
more  and  deeper  truths  than  mathematical  demonstrations.  Rec- 
ords of  the  temptation  make  it  sufficiently  plain  that  what  we 
have  here  is  a  parable  rather  than  a  history,  or  a  picture  rather 
than  a  page  from  a  diary.  Taken  literally,  it  never  happened. 
Jesus  and  Satan  never  stood  side  by  side  looking  down  on  the 
temple.  The  parable  of  the  prodigal  son  has  no  fact  in  it  from 
beginning  to  end.  There  was  no  prodigal  son ;  there  was  no 
famine;  no  fatted  calf;  no  elder  brother.  This  was  a  beautiful 
story  which  Jesus  told,  and  he  made  up  every  word  of  it." 

When  a  man  makes  an  assertion  the  source  of  which 
is  beyond  the  ordinary  range  of  human  knowledge,  it  is 
always  pertinent  to  ask  him.  How  do  you  know?  When 
Professor  Hodges  said  that  Christ  did  not  meet  Satan, 
some  of  those  university  students  ought  to  have  risen 
and  said,  ''Professor,  how  do  you  know?  Have  you  any 
other  source  of  information  on  the  subject  than  the  three 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  361 

Gospels,  which  assert  that  he  did?"  And  when  he  said 
that  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son  has  no  fact  in  it  from 
beginning-  to  end.  he  shonld  have  been  confronted  with 
the  same  question.  Unless  he  is  omniscient,  so  as  to 
know  what  took  place  two  thousand  years  ago  without 
the  aid  of  evidence  on  the  subject,  his  answer  would 
have  been  silence  and  confusion  of  face.  But  our  ad- 
vanced critics  are  constantly  assuming  omniscience  in 
regard  to  facts  of  history  which  do  not  please  them. 
According  to  the  very  first  canon  of  historical  criticism, 
the  testimony  of  men  who  were  contemporaries  of 
asserted  facts,  and  who  had  access  to  means  of  correct 
information,  must  be  accorded  the  highest  degree  of  his- 
torical credibility.  But  this  scientific  professor  expected 
the  students  of  Pennsylvania  University  to  believe  him  in 
this  twentieth  century  concerning  facts  in  the  first,  in 
opposition  to  ]\Iatthew,  ^Mark  and  Luke.  Who  will  dare 
to  say  that  he  is  conceited  or  presumptuous? 

As  to  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son,  how  would  it 
do  for  me  to  assume  the  same  omniscience,  and  play  the 
same  trick  with  the  parable  of  the  sower?  I  would  say 
that  in  the  parable  of  the  sower  there  is  no  fact  from 
beginning  to  end.  There  was  no  man  sowing  seed. 
There  was  no  seed  that  fell  by  the  wayside,  and  of  course 
there  were  no  birds  that  ate  them  up.  There  was  no 
stony  ground  in  that  country,  and  of  course  no  seed  fell 
upon  it.  There  were  no  briars  or  thorns,  and  there  was 
no  good  ground.  There  was  no  harvest  of  thirty,  sixty 
and  a  hundred  fold.  Wouldn't  I,  if  I  could  keep  my 
face  straight  while  gassing  after  this  fashion,  make  a 
lot  of  students  who  never  read  the  Bible,  and  who  looked 
upon  me  as  a  "modern  scientific  critic,"  open  their  eyes 
in  wonder  at  the  results  of  modern  learning?  Now,  this 
is  the  kind  of  stuff  with  which  certain  professor.,  are 


362  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

stuffing  young-  men  under  the  pretense  of  educating  them. 
We  have  some  consolation  in  the  behef  that  the  devil  will 
yet  claim  his  own. 


[June  I,  1901.] 
FREEDOM   IN   TEACHING. 

The  question  of  the  right  of  a  professor  to  teach 
what  he  chooses,  without  regard  to  the  rights  of  others, 
has  again  come  to  the  front  by  the  removal  from  the 
Leland  Stanford  University  of  California  of  a  professor 
for  teaching  doctrines  in  opposition  to  cherished  views 
of  Mrs.  Stanford,  by  whom  and  her  husband  the  institu- 
tion was  founded  and  endowed.  The  CJiristiaii  Century 
says :  "This  illustrates  the  dangers  of  schools  founded  by 
gifts  of  rich  people.  It  has  a  tendency  to  make  them 
craven.  It  may  suppress  free  inquiry  and  expression. 
We  honor  the  man  who  can  not  be  awed  into  ambiguous 
or  false  teaching  by  the  glitter  and  tyranny  of  wealth.  A 
college,  university,  newspaper,  preacher,  or  public  serv- 
ant of  any  kind,  that  will  suppress  the  truth  for  fear  of 
offending  people  who  have  money,  plays  the  role  of 
Judas  Iscariot,  except  that  they  are  more  cowardly  than 
Judas."' 

What  has  all  this  to  do  with  the  case  in  hand?  Was 
the  professor  required  to  suppress  the  truth?  Was  there 
an  attempt  to  awe  him  into  ambiguous  or  false  teaching? 
The  published  accounts  of  the  case  give  no  hint  of  any- 
thing of  the  kind.  It  was  simply  a  question  whether  a 
man  who  taught  things  v/hich  the  proprietor  of  the  insti- 
tution regarded  as  false  and  injurious  should  occupy  a 
certain  chair,  or  should  give  place  to  another.  Who  has 
the  right  to  decide  this  question,  if  not  the  governing 
board  of  the  institution?     The  discharged  professor  is 


BIBLICAL  CRITICISM  363 

just  as  free  as  any  other  American  citizen  to  teach  what 
he  thinks  is  true  ;  and  the  authorities  of  the  university 
have  precisely  the  same  right  to  have  taught  in  the  insti- 
tution that  which  they  beheve  to  be  true. 

\Mien  was  the  discovery  made  that  men  and  women 
of  means  have  no  right  to  found  colleges  and  universities 
for  the  impartation  to  the  young  of  great  truth  to  which 
they  are  devoted,  and  to  guard  them  against  the  intrusion 
of  professors  who  teach  the  opposite?  Let  this  right  be 
generally  denied,  and  it  will  be  found  that  neither  rich 
men  nor  poor  men  will  any  longer  invest  their  money  in 
such  institutions.  Men  may,  if  they  choose,  endow  uni- 
versities free  for  the  teaching  of  anything  and  every- 
thing that  may  enter  into  the  cranky  brain  of  any  pro- 
fessor who  may  obtain  a  position  in  it,  and  they  may 
make  it  unlawful  to  remove  a  professor  on  account  of 
anything  under  the  sun  which  he  may  choose  to  teach; 
but  I  believe  that  no  man  who  has  enough  sense  to  make 
money  will  ever  commit  such  a  folly  as  to  do  this.  I 
suppose  that  even  in  the  University  of  Chicago,  in  which 
it  is  commonly  reported  that  in  the  selection  of  profess- 
ors no  question  is  asked  about  their  reHgion,  if  one  of 
them  should  begin  to  teach  the  divine  origin  of  the  Book 
of  :\Iormon  and  propagate  the  innocence  of  polygamy 
and  free  love,  his  seat  would  soon  be  made  too  w^arm  for 
him.  Or  if  he  should  openly  teach  heathenism,  should 
set  up  a  Chinese  joss  in  his  classroom,  and  induce  his 
classes  to  offer  morning  prayers-  to  it,  some  way  would 
be  found  to  get  rid  of  him  ;  and  the  only  reason  why  a 
srreat  clamor  would  not  arise  against  the  tvranny  of 
money  in  suppressing  free  inquiry,  would  be  that  the 
fool  would  have  no  outside  sympathizers  this  side  of 
China.  And  right  here  is  the  secret  of  all  this  clamor. 
jMen  who  have  fallen  into  errors  condemned  by  the  sensi- 


364  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

ble  rulers  of  colleges,  newspapers,  pulpits,  etc.,  see  some 
of  their  kind  ousted  from  good  places,  and  by  imagina- 
tion they  feel  their  own  corns  trodden  upon,  and  they  cry 
out  against  tyranny  and  bigotry.  This  has  been  the  cry 
of  ambitious  infidels  for  ages  past ;  but  it  has  not  and  it 
will  not  deter  college  authorities  who  know  their  own 
rights  from  exercising  them  freely.  A  nice  set  of  col- 
leges, newspapers  and  pulpits  we  should  have,  if  every 
fellow  who  could  once  get  into  a  snug  place  in  one  of 
them  should  be  granted  the  inalienable  right  to  stay  there 
and  do  according  to  his  own  pernicious  pleasure. 


[Nov.  12,  1898.1 

THE    NEW    CRITICAL    METHOD. 

From  the  Independent  I  learn  that  Th.  Weitbrecht,  a 
German  Biblical  writer  of  Stuttgart,  has  published  a 
book  in  defense  of  the  credibility  of  the  Scriptures,  in 
which  he  gives  the  following  account  of  the  method 
employed  by  the  new  school  of  critics.  The  picture  is 
as  correctly  drawn  for  this  side  of  the  ocean  as  for  that: 

When  the  critic  attacks  a  particular  doctrine  of  the  faith, 
and  appeals  to  the  "Sacred  Scriptures"  as  the  basis  of  his  attack, 
I  call  his  attention,  say,  to  a  passage  in  Colossians,  in  defense 
of  the  church's  teachings.  Then  I  am  told  that  the  Epistle  to 
the  Colossians  is  not  Pauline,  and  can  not  be  appealed  to.  Then 
I  cite  Romans,  but  am  told  that  Romans  is  indeed  of  Pauline 
origin,  but  that  Paul  has  no  decisive  voice  in  the  matter  at  issue, 
and  that  a  word  of  Christ 'is  wanted.  Then  I  refer  him  to  a 
passage  in  John's  Gospel,  but  am  told  that  this  will  not  do,  as 
the  fourth  Gospel  is  not  Johannine.  When,  then,  I  refer  to  a 
passage  in  Mark,  I  am  told  that  Mark  is  indeed  genuine,  but 
that  just  the  passage  in  question  is  not  critically  reliable,  but  is 
a  later  addition  to  the  Gospel.  When,  then,  I  cite  a  passage  as 
an  original  saying  of  Jesus  that  is  not  thus  critically  objection- 
able, I  am  told  that  this  is  indeed  a  genuine  saying  of  Christ, 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  365 

but  Wf^c  ■'.t^ows  if  it  has  been  handed  down  to  us  in  its  original 
sliine  a-^J  form,  or  if  it  is  in  the  present  form  not  the  result 
-of  the  later  dogmatic  period?  What  certainty  can  such  a 
i^thod  attain? 


[Apr.  12,  1902.] 
DEBORAH   DISHONORED. 

Nearly  all  of  our  destructive  critics  have  something 
D  say  about  the  prophetess.  Deborah,  and  all  with  little 
respect  for  her  and  little  credit  to  themselves.  The  latest 
example  which  has  fallen  under  my  eye  is  found  in  the 
March  number  of  the  Biblical  World,  and  in  an  essay 
by  Prof.  L.  B.  Paton,  of  the  Hartford  Theological  Semi- 
nary. It  bears  the  heading,  "Deborah's  Conception  of 
Yahweh."  The  essay  opens  with  the  following  para- 
graph : 

Notice  first  the  similarity  of  Deborah  to  the  prophets  and 
prophetesses  of  other  ancient  peoples.  She  "used  to  sit  under 
the  palm-tree  of  Deborah."  doubtless  the  same  sacred  tree  that 
is  mentioned  in  Gen.  35  :  8.  Presumably  she  drew  her  responses 
from  the  rustling  of  its  leaves,  as  other  Semitic  seers  were 
accustomed  to  do.  The  children  of  Israel  came  to  her  for  "de- 
cision," no  doubt  on  such  trivial  matters  as  later  were  referred 
to  Samuel  (i  Sam.  9:6).  Her  wide  influence  she  used  to  stir 
up  hostility  against  the  Canaanites.  and  she  marched  at  the  head 
of  the  army  like  an  ancient  German  prophetess. 

It  would  be  hard  to  find  a  paragraph  in  what  has 
been  written  by  the  most  radical  skeptics  against  Debo- 
rah, more  disparaging  to  her,  or  more  replete  wit'  evi- 
dences of  the  writer's  ignorance  of  his  subject. 

She  "used  to  sit  imder  the  palm-tree  of  Deborah;" 
and  what  woman  out  of  doors  in  a  hot  country,  or  what 
man,  as  to  that,  would  not  sit  under  a  tree  rather  than  in 
the  broiling  sun  ^  But  this  tree  was  "doubtless  the  same 
sacred  tree  that  is  mentioned  in  Gen.  35 :  8."     The  refer- 


366  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

ence  is  to  the  oak-tree  under  which  the  Deborah  who  had 
been  Rebekah's  nurse  was  buried.  That  oak  was  doubt- 
less a  somewhat  conspicuous  tree  at  the  time,  yet  it  was 
''doubtless  the  same  tree"  under  which  the  second  Debo- 
rah used  to  sit,  though  she  lived  more  than  five  hundred 
years  later.  It  "doubtless"  became  a  very  old  tree.  But 
its  old  age  was  not  the  most  surprising  thing  about  it, 
for  in  the  course  of  those  five  hundred  years  and  more 
it  had  changed  from  an  oaA'-tree  to  a  pahn-tree.  I  sup- 
pose this  was  evolution.  The  first  Deborah  was  buried 
under  an  oak-tree,  and  the  second  Deborah  sat  under  a 
palm-tree,  but  with  this  learned  professor  in  a  theological 
seminary  it  was  "doubtless  the  same  sacred  tree."  And 
why  call  it  a  sacred  tree?  The  first  Deborah  was  buried 
under  an  oak,  not  because  it  was  a  sacred  tree ;  neither  did 
the  second  Deborah  sit  under  a  palm  because  it  was  a 
sacred  tree.  Not  a  word  is  said  in  either  passage  about 
the  sacredness  of  the  tree,  and  such  things  as  sacred  trees, 
though  the  minds  of  the  modern  critics  are  full  of  them, 
are  not  known  to  the  Scriptures  from  Genesis  to  Revela- 
tion. I  would  not  be  surprised  if  we  should  next  hear 
from  some  crack-brained  critic  that  the  tree  in  which 
Absalom  was  suspended  was  a  sacred  tree,  and  that  his 
mule,  through  gratitude  that  he  was  not  killed  in  the 
battle,  ran  under  the  tree  and  left  Absalom  hanging  there 
as  a  thank-ofifering  to  the  god  of  the  tree.  A  man  whose 
brain  has  not  been  addled  by  the  subtleties  of  crooked 
criticism  would  say  that  the  first  Deborah  was  buried 
under  a  tree  in  order  that  any  of  Jacob's  family,  who 
might  afterward  pass  that  way,  might  easily  find  the 
grave  of  the  good  old  nurse;  and  that  Deborah  the 
second  sat  under  a  tree  when  the  people  gathered  about 
her  because  her  hoiise  was  not  commodious  enough  to 
receive  them. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  3C7 

lUit,  with  Professor  Paton,  Deborah  had  another  and 
very  different  reason   for   sitting  under  the  tree:   "Pre- 
sumably she  drew  her  responses  from  the  rusthng  of  its 
leaves,  as  other  Semitic  seers  were  accustomed  to  do." 
This  puts  her  on  a  par  with  heathen  fortune-tellers ;  and 
the  next  sentence  has  the  same  import:  "The  children  of 
Israel  came  to  her  for  'decision,'  no  doubt  on  such  trivial 
matters  as  later  were  referred  to  Samuel  (i  Sam.  9:6)  ;" 
that  is,  such  matters  as  telling  where  to  find  stray  asses. 
The   rustling  of  the  leaves  of  the  tree  would  tell  her 
wdiere  the  stray  asses  could  be  found.     And  we  are  to 
suppose,  also,  that  it  was  the  rustling  of  the  leaves  which 
told  her  to  call  Barak  with  ten  thousand  men  to  :\Iount 
Tabor,  after  which  Sisera  with  Jabin's  army  would  come 
down  and  Jehovah  would  deliver  him  into  Barak's  hand. 
Finally,  this  professor  and  Ph.  D.  forgets  the  Scripture, 
and  draws  on  his  imagination  to  tell  us  that  Deborah 
"marched  at  the  head  of  the  army  like  an  ancient  Ger- 
man prophetess."     Of  course  he  knows  that  she  did  this, 
for  the  text  says  not  a  word  about  it. 

If  good  old  Lappidoth,  the  husband  of  Deborah, 
should  happen  back  in  this  world  again,  and  hear  how 
such  men  as  Professor  Paton  are  smutting  the  reputation 
of  his  wdfe,  I  think  his  wrath  w^ould  be  kindled  as  of  old, 
and  somebody  would  be  in  danger  from  the  toe  of  his 
boot. 


[June  I.  1901.I 

DEBORAH'S   FORTY  THOUSAND. 

Professor  Driver  and  other  modern  scientific  critics 

hold  that  the  story  of  the  war  between  Benjamin  and  the 

other  tribes  is  not  truthfully  represented  in  the  Book  of 

Judges,  because  the   latter   represents  the  army  of  the 


368  SHORT   ESSAYS  IN 

tribes  as  numbering  four  hundred  thousand  footmen 
(20:2)  ;  whereas  Deborah,  who  hved  not  far  from  the 
same  time,  "places  the  number  of  warriors  of  entire 
Israel  at  not  more  than  forty  thousand"  {Introduction, 
168).  But  Deborah  does  no  such  thing.  She  says  noth- 
ing at  all  about  the  number  of  warriors  in  "entire 
Israel."  What  she  does  say  is  this:  "Was  there  a  shield 
or  spear  seen  among  forty  thousand  in  Israel?"  (Judg. 
10:8).  She  was  speaking,  as  the  preceding  context 
shows,  of  the  oppression  under  Jabin,  which  preceded 
her  call  to  arms,  and  emphasizing  the  scarcity  of  weapons 
in  the  hands  of  her  people.  When  will  these  critics  learn 
to  inform  themselves  in  the  Scriptures  which  they  criti- 
cize, and  to  represent  them  correctly?  Not,  I  suppose, 
until  they  get  to  believing  them.  If  a  man  believes  the 
word  of  God,  this  makes  him  careful  how  he  quotes  it; 
but  if  he  believes  it  to  be  a  bundle  of  myths,  legends  and 
folklore,  he  is  apt  to  spend  his  time  hunting  for  these ; 
and  he  finds  them  whether  thev  are  there  or  not. 


[June  I,  1901.] 

THE  ALPACAS. 

The  Expository  Times  for  May,  in  noticing  a  new 
book  by  I\Ir.  Hunt,  on  "Salvation  After  Death,"  says:  "A 
writer  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  once  said  that  he  under- 
stood what  would  become  of  the  sheep  and  what  would 
become  of  the  goats  ;  it  was  the  alpacas  he  was  concerned 
about.  Mr.  Hunt's  concern  is  about  the  alpacas  also."  I 
suppose  that  these  two  gentlemen  knew  that  they  are  not 
sheep,  and  are  unwilling  to  acknowledge  themselves  to 
be  goats ;  so  they  have  raised  the  question  about  alpacas. 
They  are  two  of  a  great  multitude  who  imagine  that 
there  will  be  some  kind  of  gap  between  the  sheep  and 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  369 

the  goats  in  the  day  of  judgment,  into  which  they  can 
sHp  and  ghde  through  without  being  badly  hurt.  They 
are  hke  a  man  of  whom  P.  B.  Wiles  used  to  tell.  He  was 
asked  if  he  was  a  member  of  the  church.  He  replied,  '1 
used  to  be,  but  the  church  which  I  belonged  to  split  on 
politics."  "Well,  with  which  side  did  you  go?"  '1  didn't 
go  with  either ;  I  went  with  the  split."  The  alpacas  hope 
to  go  with  the  split,  but  what  concerns  them  is  that  when 
they  fall  through  the  split,  they  don't  know  where  they 
are  to  land. 


[Jan.  18.  1902.] 

WELLHAUSEN'S  BATTLE  AT  THE  RED  SEA. 

Julius  Wellhausen,  the  head  master  of  "modern  scien- 
tific criticism,"  has  a  lively  imagination.  He  can  make 
and  unmake  history  at  will,  and  he  is  said  to  be  brilliant 
in  doing  both.  A  fit  specimen  is  his  account  of  the  cross- 
ing of  the  Red  Sea  by  Israel.     Here  it  is: 

The  situation  was  a  critical  one;  but  a  high  wind  during  the 
night  had  left  the  shallow  sea  so  low  that  it  became  possible  to 
ford  it.  :Moses  eagerly  accepted  the  suggestion,  and  made  the 
venture  with  success.  The  Egyptians  rushing  after  came  up  with 
them  on  the  further  shore,  and  a  struggle  ensued.  But  the 
assailants  fought  at  a  disadvantage,  the  ground  being  ill  suited 
for  their  chariots  and  horsemen;  they  fell  into  confusion  and 
attempted  to  retreat.  Meanwhile,  the  wind  had  changed ;  the 
waters  returned,  and  the  pursuers  were  annihilated.— .-/r^/c/^ 
"Israel,"  in  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  p.  406. 

This  is  the  man  who  is  chiefly  followed  by  our  Eng- 
lish and  American  "evangelical  critics."  He  should  be 
called  as  a  witness  by  the  weaker  side  in  the  coming 
investigation  of  Admiral  Schley's  conduct  at  Santiago. 
He  could  make  out  an  account  of  that  battle  to  suit;  and 


370  SHORT    ESSAYS   IN 

if  no  battle-  at  all  had  been  fought,  he  could  testify  to 
one  all  the  same. 

Wellhausen's  immediate  predecessor,  and  the  ration- 
alist to  whom,  next  to  Wellhausen,  our  ''evangelicals" 
are  most  indebted,  Abraham  Kuenen,  is  not  so  knowing. 
On  the  subject  of  the  Red  Sea  crossing  he  not  only  fails 
to  be  wise  above  what  is  written,  but  he  is  doubtful  about 
how  much  of  the  latter  he  should  accept.     He  says : 

What  actually  took  place  there  we  do  not  know.  The  only 
thing  certain  is  that  the  Israelites  remembered  that  they  had 
there  escaped  a  great  danger  which  threatened  them  from  the 
side  of  the  Egyptians.  Even  in  early  times  their  rescue  was  con- 
sidered and  celebrated  as  an  act  of  Jahveh.  The  account  which 
we  possess  in  Exodus  of  their  passage  may  have  existed  as  early 
as  the  eighth  century  B.  C.  It  is  undoubtedly  founded  on  fact. 
But  it  is  very  difficult  to  distinguish  the  actual  circumstances  of 
the  occurrence  from  poetical  embellishments.  We  will  not  risk 
the  attempt. — "Religion  of  Israel,"  Vol.  I.,  p.  126. 

Poor  fellow !  Being  bound  by  a  foregone  conclusion 
to  reject  the  miracle,  and  having  too  much  good  sense  to 
accept  the  silly  accounts  of  his  fellows  in  rationalism,  he 
stumbles  and  falls  like  an  old  man  without  his  cane. 


[Jan.  18,  1902.] 
SOME    CHOICE    EXTRACTS. 

I  have  before  me  a  small  but  neatly  printed  volume, 
entitled  "The  Prophets  of  Israel,"  by  Professor  Cornill, 
of  the  University  of  Konigsberg.  He  is  frequently 
quoted  as  an  authority  by  our  American  advanced  critics. 
It  is  said  in  the  preface  to  his  little  book  that  "Prof.  Carl 
Heinrich  Cornill  is  an  orthodox  Christian.  He  holds  the 
chair  of  Old  Testament  history  in  the  venerable  Univer- 
sity of  Konigsberg."  He  is  a  representative  German 
critic  of  the  new  school;  so  I  want  to  introduce  him  to 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM 


371 


our  readers  by  a  few  choice  extracts  from  his  book  on 
the  prophets. 

The  IsraeHtish  narrative,  as  it  lies  before  us  in  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  gives  a  thoroughly  one-sided,  and  in  many 
respects  incorrect,  picture  of  profane  history,  and  on  the  other 
hand  an  absolutely  false  representation  of  the  religious  history 
of  the  people,  and  has  thus  made  the  discovery  of  the  truth 
almost  impossible  (p.  2). 

If  this  statement  is  true,  I  should  like  to  know  the 
sense  of  having  in  the  "venerable  University  of  Konigs- 
berg"  a  professor  of  this  "absolutely  false  history."  Why 
not  also  have  a  professor  of  "Gulliver's  Travels"?  I 
should  say  that  "an  orthodox  Christian"  is  on  a  fool's 
errand  when  he  devotes  his  time  to  lectures  on  such  a 
book  as  that. 

These  German  critics  do  not  often  make  a  confession 
of  ignorance,  and,  when  they  do,  it  is  ignorance  about 
something  which  they  ought  to  know.  Cornill  makes 
such  a  confession  in  the  following  passage : 

And  now  I  must  make  an  admission  to  you  which  it  is  hard 
for  me  to  make,  but  which  is  my  fullest  scientific  conviction, 
based  upon  the  most  cogent  grounds,  that  in  the  sense  in  which 
the  historian  speaks  of  knowing,  we  know  absolutely  nothing 
about  ]\Ioses.  All  original  records  are  missing;  we  have  not 
received  a  line,  not  even  a  word,  from  Moses  himself,  or  from 
any  of  his  contemporaries   (17). 

The  question  now  arises.  Why  did  the  authorities  of 
the  venerable  University  of  Konigsberg  put  into  the 
chair  of  Old  Testament  history  a  man  who  is  such  an 
ignoramus  as  to  know  absolutely  nothing  about  Closes? 
As  well  have  an  agnostic  to  lecture  on  the  being  and 
attributes  of  God. 

But  scarcelv  do  vou  turn  a  leaf  in  Cornill's  book  until 


372  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

you  read  of  things  that  Moses  did.     These  statements 
cuhiiinate  in  this : 

By  giving  Israel  a  national  Deity,  Moses  made  of  it  a  nation, 
and  cemented  together  by  this  ideal  band  the  different  hetero- 
geneous elements  of  the  nation  into  a  miity.  Moses  formed 
Israel  into  a  people.  With  Moses  and  his  work  begins  the  his- 
tory of  the  people  of   Israel    (26,  27). 

And  this  is  the  IMoses  of  whom  this  knowing  pro- 
fessor knows  absolutely  nothing ! 

It  is  different  with  reference  to  Ahab.  This  notorious 
apostate  is  better  known  to  Cornill  than  he  is  to  the  Bible 
historian : 

Ahab,  owing  to  his  conflict  with  Elijah,  is  ranked  among  the 
Biblical  miscreants — l)ut  as  unjustly  so  as  Saul.  Ahab  was  one 
of  the  best  kings  and  mightiest  rulers  that  Israel  ever  had, 
esteemed  and  admired  by  both  friend  and  foe  as  a  man  of  worth 
and  character   (29). 

As  the  Israelitish  history  gives  an  "absolutely  false 
representation  of  the  religious  history  of  the  people,"  I 
suppose  that  Cornill  learned  all  this  about  Ahab  by  taking 
the  writer's  account  of  him  as  the  opposite  of  the  truth. 
There  are  some  men  so  given  to  lying  that  the  opposite 
of  what  they  say  is  apt  to  be  the  truth.  The  Bible 
writers,  with  Cornill,  belong  to  this  class.  On  this  prin- 
ciple he  not  only  praises  Ahab,  but  he  smirches  the  repu- 
tation of  Elijah  by  saying: 

Elijah  was  no  opposer  of  Baal  on  grounds  of  principle  (31). 

On  Elisha  he  has  no  mercy  at  all.     He  says : 

Elisha  had  learned  from  his  predecessor's  example  that  noth- 
ing could  be  achieved  with  spiritual  weapons ;  he  became  a 
demagogue  and  conspirator,  a  revolutionist  and  agitator  (34). 

And  still  we  wonder  how  a  man  who  knew  absolutely 
nothing  about  Moses,  could  know  so  much  about  Ahab 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  373 

and  Elijah  and  Elisha.  We  wonder,  especially,  how  he 
knew  so  much  that  isn't  so.  And  we  wonder,  more  and 
more,  why  "the  venerable  University  of  Konigsberg" 
wants  a  man  in  its  faculty  to  lecture  about  a  book  so 
full  of  lies  as  the  Old  Testament. 

Perhaps  these  are  enough  addled  eggs  for  me  to 
gather  out  of  Cornill's  nest  at  one  time.  Their  odor  is 
not  very  refreshing.  If  he  passes  in  Germany  for  "an 
orthodox  Christian/'  I  am  not  going  over  there  to  study 
orthodoxy. 


[:May  17,  1902.] 
THE  ISSUE  WRONGLY  STATED, 
The  Christian-Evangelist  of  April  10.  in  an  article 
headed  ''Faith  and  Opinion,"  has  quite  a  number  of  state- 
ments on  current  Biblical  criticism  which  obscure  instead 
of  clarifying  the  subject.  One  or  two  of  these  we  have 
selected  for  comment;  and,  first,  this  having  reference 
to  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch: 

It  is  not  a  question  whether  these  books  are  true,  or  possess 
historical  value,  but  it  is  a  question  of  authorship  and  date. 

How  car?  this  be  said,  when  these  books  declare  four 
or  five  hundred  times  that  :\Ioses  said  and  did  things 
which  he  did  not  do  or  say  if  ^Moses  is  not  their  author? 
How  can  this  be  said,  if  hundreds  of  other  sober  his- 
torical statements  made  in  these  books  are  unfounded 
traditions,  and  if  such  men  as  Adam,  Noah  and  Abraham 
are  mythological  heroes  who  never  had  a  real  existence  ? 
It  is  wrong  to  persist,  a*  the  Christian-Evangelist  hab- 
itually does,  in  minifying  the  aberrations  of  destructive 
critics. 

Another  of  these  cloudv  statements  is  this: 


374  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Any  man  may  1)e  safely  permitted  to  hold  any  view  of  the 
Pentateuch  or  of  Jonah  which  seems  to  him  true,  who  has  Christ 
formed  within  him,  the  hope  of  glory. 

By  the  expression  "may  be  safely  permitted"  is 
meant,  I  suppose,  may  be  permitted  without  remon- 
strance, and  especially  without  a  charge  of  "incipient 
infidelity."  If,  then,  it  seem  true  to  any  man  that  these 
books  were  fabricated  by  designing  priests  for  the  pur- 
pose of  deceiving  men  and  gaining  pelf  for  themselves, 
he  is  not  to  be  charged  with  even  incipient  infidelity, 
provided  he  has  "Christ  formed  within  him,  the  hope  of 
glory."  And  if  this  is  true  with  respect  to  the  Pentateuch 
and  Jonah,  the  writer  will  not  deny  that  it  is  true  with 
reference  to  the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  And 
if  it  is  true  with  reference  to  the  Old  Testament,  it  must 
be  equally  true  with  respect  to  the  New  Testament.  If, 
then,  according  to  this  gum-elastic  interpretation  of  the 
faith,  a  man  rejects  the  whole  Bible  as  mythical  and 
legendary,  but  has  Christ  *' formed  within  him,  the  hope 
of  glory,"  he  must  be  received  into  full  fellowship,  and 
no  suspicion  may  be  cast  upon  his  faith.  And  who  is 
to  decide  whether  such  a  man  has  Christ  formed  within 
him,  the  hope  of  glory?  If  we  are  to  have  Christian 
liberty,  a  liberty,  by  the  by,  which  the  ChrJstian-Ez'an- 
gelist  seems  to  think  some  are  trying  to  take  away  from 
us,  I  must  claim  the  liberty  to  judge  of  this  for  myself; 
and  my  judgment  is  that  no  man  has  Christ  formed 
within  him,  the  hope  of  glory,  if  he  does  not  believe  what 
Christ  says.  If  he  claims  to  believe  in  Christ,  and  yet 
denies  the  truth  of  something  which  Christ  afBrms,  I  can 
:iot  avoid  the  conclusion  that  he  is  troubled  with  "incipi- 
ent infidelity,"  which,  like  incipient  consumption,  will 
prove  fatal  if  it  has  its  natural  growth.  Many  a  man, 
especially  among  young  men,  has  commenced  by  doubt- 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  375 

ing-  the  story  of  Jonah,  and  gone  on  from  this  to  doubt- 
ing everything  in  the  Bible. 


[Jan.  25.  1902.] 

A    SURE    CURE    FOR    UXBELIEF. 

That  unbehef  very  commonly  springs  from  the  heart 
or  from  pride  of  intellect  has  been  frequently  demon- 
strated. The  Outlook  of  January  11  publishes  an  account 
of  a  striking  instance  of  it  in  the  experience  of  the 
eminent  French  writer,  Francis  Coppee.  In  an  article  on 
Jean  d'Arc,  Coppee  says  of  himself: 

There  was  a  time  when  I  should  have  scornfully  shrugged 
my  shoulders  at  the  mention  of  miracles.  Yet,  if  there  be  an 
almighty  Being,  the  Maker  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible,  he 
must  be  superior  to  all  those  laws  which  he  has  himself  im- 
pressed upon  his  work;  and  therefore  no  miracle  can  be  impos- 
sible to  him.  To-day  I  am  no  longer  arrogant  enough  to  over- 
look this  obvious  truth.  A  time  came  when  I  lay  on  what  seemed 
likely  to  become  my  death-bed.  I  looked  into  the  grave;  and  I 
felt  the  craving  for  immortality.  Then  I  set  myself  to  read  the 
Gospels  once  again.  I  read  them  as  they  ought  to  be  read — with 
a  simple,  open  heart — and  in  every  page,  in  every  word  of  that 
sublime  story,  I  saw  truth  shine.  And  consequently  I  now  be- 
lieve firmly  in  all  the  gospel  miracles,  chronicled  as  they  are  by 
the  evangelists,  with  a  clearness  and  a  minuteness  of  detail  which 
afford  the  most  evident  proof  of  truthfulness.  Yes,  Jesus  did 
give  sight  to  the  blind  and  life  to  the  dead.  As  he  passed  on 
his  brief  journey  through  this  world  he  scattered  these  blessings 
by  the  way  to  show  that  he  was  indeed  the  Son  of  God.  Thus 
did  he  found  the  religion  which  during  nineteen  centuries  has 
given  peace  to  all  men  of  good  will.  The  faith  in  him  which  I 
have  now  attained  I  hope  henceforward  to  keep,  and  to  see  it 
constantly  and  steadily  strengthening  unto  my  life's  end. 

The  fact  of  having  been  suspended  for  a  short  time 
over  the  grave,  and  then  placed  again  on  his  feet  to  live 
a  little  longer,  took  all  the  intellectual  pride  out  of  this 


376  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

man,  and  caused  him  to  look  at  the  gospel  narratives 
with  a  level  head.  The  result  was  the  same  unquestion- 
ing acceptance  of  what  he  read  that  is  common  with 
level-headed  people  the  world  over.  It  might  be  a  good 
thing,  in  the  case  of  many  other  infidels,  to  pray  the 
Lord  to  scare  them  up  in  a  similar  way.  Wicked  men, 
who  have  learned  to  enjoy  their  wickedness,  can  seldom 
be  persuaded  to  turn  to  the  Lord  unless  something  occurs 
to  scare  them  nearly  to  death  about  their  eternal  pros- 
pects. It  is  w^ell  enough  to  say,  as  some  men  are  so  fond 
of  saying,  that  you  can  not  scare  men  into  the  kingdom 
of  God ;  for  in  a  certain  sense  this  is  true ;  but  it  is 
equally  true  that  there  are  many  men  who  will  never 
enter  the  kingdom,  or  seriously  think  of  doing  so,  until 
you  scare  them.  You  must  thunder  the  terrors  of  the 
final  judgment  in  their  ears,  as  Jesus  did,  and  as  Paul 
did,  if  you  are  ever  to  make  them  repent. 

A  case  similar  to  the  one  recounted  above  occurred 
in  Kentucky  not  many  years  ago.  A  young  brother 
wdiom  we  shall  call  Tom,  who  was  a  zealous  Christian 
and  ever  ready  for  an  argument  in  defense  of  his  faith, 
had  occasion  to  spend  the  night  with  a  relative  whom  he 
called  Cousin  George.  Cousin  George  was  an  atheist, 
and  was  also  fond  of  argument.  At  the  supper  table  he 
began  on  Tom  about  his  superstitious  belief  in  an  invisi- 
ble and  intangible  God.  Tom  took  up  the  gauntlet,  and 
they  had  it  up  and  down  till  bedtime.  Late  in  the  night 
Tom  heard  a  commotion  downstairs  and  the  groaning 
of  some  one  in  great  pain.  He  hurriedly  dressed  and 
went  down.  He  found  Cousin  George  rolling  about  on 
the  bed  with  a  desperate  case  of  cramp  colic,  and  calling 
loudly  on  the  Lord  with  every  breath.  "O  Lord,  O  God, 
have  mercy  on  me."  Tom  walked  up  to  the  bedside, 
joined   with   those    who    were    rubbing    him,    and    said : 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  377 

"Don't  call  on  him,  Cousin  George  ;  there  ain't  any."  At 
this  Cousin  George  would  grit  his  teeth  and  hold  in 
awhile,  but  when  another  sharp  pain  would  strike  him, 
he  would  again  cry  out,  *'0  God,  have  mercy."  Again 
Tom  would  say,  "Don't  call  on  him.  Cousin  George ; 
there  ain't  any ;"  and  so  he  tormented  Cousin  George 
until  the  doctor  came  and  gave  him  an  opiate. 


[May  27,  1902.] 
A    PROBLEM    IX    HIGHER    CRITICISM. 

Several  Bible  students  request  a  clear  answer  to  this  diffi- 
culty. Statement  of  Question  :  i.  You  believe  that  every  part  and 
item  of  the  original  Scriptures  is  inspired.  You  also  once  stated 
that  chapters  11  and  12  of  Acts  should  be  taken  in  their  order 
as  recorded,  and  that  Paul's  visit  to  Jerusalem  recorded  there 
"was  before"  the  death  of  Herod  Agrippa,  who  killed  James. 

2.  Now,  in  Gal.  i  :  16-24,  Paul  tells  us  that  his  first  visit  to 
Jerusalem  (after  his  conversion)  was  "to  see  Peter,"  and  that 
"afterwards  I  .  .  .  zi'as  iDiknown  by  face  unto  the  churches  in 
JudeaT  Then,  "fourteen  years  after  I  went  up  again  to  Jeru- 
salem with  Barnabas"  (chap.  2:  i,  2).  Therefore,  this  visit  men- 
tioned in  Acts  II  and  12  must  have  been  his  second  visit,  for 
they  saw  him  face  to  face  (only  the  second  time  then).  Herod 
died  A.  D.  44  (undisputed  by  any  authority).  Therefore,  this 
visit  could  not  have  been  later.  Therefore,  at  the  least  cviint, 
Paul's  conversion  was  fourteen  years  previous. to  A.  D.  44,  or 
A.  D.  30.  Hence  this  would  mean  that  Paul  had  been  converted 
before  the  crucifixion.  Can  this  be  clearly  harmonized  without 
forcing?     If  so,  please  do  so. 

ANSWER. 

The  ''problem"  here  presented  is  an  old  one.  It  has 
been  used  by  critics  of  the  skeptical  school  to  prove  the 
unreliability  of  the  author  of  Acts  by  showing  that  Paul 
and  Barnabas  did  not  make  the  journey  from  Antioch  to 
Jerusalem  described  in  chapters   i  r   and   12.     But  those 


378  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

who  use  it  thus,  misinterpret  Paul's  statements  in  Gala- 
tians.  In  the  first  and  second  chapters  of  this  Epistle 
the  apostle  is  showing  that  he  had  not  enjoyed  the  oppor- 
tunities necessary  to  have  obtained  his  knowledge  of  the 
gospel  from  the  older  apostles,  as  the  Judaizers  had 
claimed.  To  this  end  it  was  not  necessary  to  mention 
all  the  visits  he  had  made  to  Jerusalem,  where  some  of 
the  older  apostles,  and  especially  Peter,  could  be  usually 
found,  but  only  those  in  which  he  could  have  seen  Peter 
and  learned  from  him.  Now,  in  the  account  of  the  alms- 
giving trip  with  Barnabas,  there  is  nothing  said  of  their 
being  in  Jerusalem  until  they  started  back  to  Antioch, 
when  it  is  said,  "They  returned  from  Jerusalem  when 
they  had  fulfilled  their  ministrations."  This  w^as  after 
the  death  of  Herod  (12:23-25).  They  had  come  from 
Antioch  to  bring  alms,  not  to  Jerusalem  especially,  but 
"to  the  brethren  that  dwelt  in  Judea"  (11:20).  When 
they  reached  Judea,  Jerusalem  was  not  a  very  healthy 
place  for  apostles;  for  Herod  had  just  beheaded  James 
and  cast  Peter  into  prison,  intending  to  kill  him  also 
after  the  Passover.  But  Peter,  on  being  released  by  an 
angel  the  night  before  his  intended  execution,  "departed 
and  went  to  another  place."  From  all  this  it  appears 
that  on  this  visit  Paul  did  not  meet  with  Peter  at  all; 
consequently.  His  next  visit  after  this  was  the  one  men- 
tioned in  Galatians,  and  this  w^as  the  one  on  which  he 
was  sent  with  Barnabas  to  confer  with  the  older  apostles 
about  circumcision.  It  is  described  in  Acts  15.  This 
was  in  the  year  50,  and  the  fourteen  years  since  his  con- 
version dates  the  latter  event  in  36,  about  tv/o  years 
after  the  death  of  Jesus.  The  wdiole  "prcblem"  is 
worked  out  in  my  "Commentary  on  Acts,"  and  also  in 
my  w^ork  on  the  credibility  of  the  New  Testament  books. 
The  remark  of  Paul  alluded  to  above,  "I  was   still 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  379 

unknown  by  face  to  the  churches  in  Judea"  (Gal.  i  :  22), 
has  reference  to  the  interval  in  which  he  was  "in  the 
regions  of  Syria  and  Cilicia"  (21);  and  this  was  be- 
tween his  departure  to  Tarsus,  and  his  being  called 
thence  to  Antioch  by  Barnabas  (9:30-11:25).  Of 
course  his  tour  among  the  Judean  churches  with  r)ar- 
nabas,  distributing  the  gift  from  Antioch,  brought  thi-> 
ignorance  of  his  person  to  a  close. 


I  Jan.  25.  1902.] 
PLAIN    QUESTIOXS    AND    PLAIN     ANSWERS 

The  editor  of  the  JVcstcni  Recorder  has  put  to  the 
editor  of  the  Indcpcndnit  two  plain  questions  suggested 
by  recent  utterances  of  the  latter.  The  questions  are 
these : 

Do  you  hold  that  we  are  under  obligation  to  believe  what- 
ever the  Bible,  fairly  interpreted,  teaches;  and  to  do  whatever 
the  Bible,  fairly  interpreted,  enjoins? 

To  both  of  these  questions  the  Independent  answers 
with  an  emphatic  "No."  As  examples  of  things  that  he 
does  not  believe,  he  .specifies  the  account  of  creation, 
and  the  prediction  by  our  Lord,  in  the  twenty- fourth 
chapter  of  ^Matthew,  about  his  second  coming.  As  an 
example  of  precepts  which  he  is  not  bound  to  obey,  he 
specifies  Paul's  order  that  women  shall  keep  silence  in 
the  churches.     Of  the  latter  he  says: 

The  Bible,  "fairly  interpreted,"  seems  to  us  to  "enjoin" 
women  to  keep  silence  in  churches.  We  can  get  no  other  fair 
interpretation  out  of  Paul's  language.  To  our.  mind  it  is  clear 
that  women  now  have  a  right  to  speak  and  teach,  and  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  church  has  reversed  what  the  Holy  Spirit 
said  through  Paul.  That  is.  if  Dr.  Eaton  prefers,  we  set  up  our 
private  judgment  against  Paul's  interpretation;  but  we  think 
have  the  Holy  Spirit  with  us. 


38o  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

We  shall  wait  and  watch  with  interest  to  see  how 
Bro.  Eaton  will  dispose  of  the  shallow  sophistry  by  which 
the  Independent  tries  to  excuse  his  candid  confessions. 


[Jan.  25,  1902.] 

THE    WAY    IT    GOES    AT    YALE. 

A  volume  of  ''Critical  and  Historical  Essays"  has  just 
been  published  by  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  written  by 
members  of  the  "Biblical  and  Semitic  Faculty"  of  Yale 
University.     TJie  Outlook,  in  a  brief  notice  of  it,  says: 

The  conclusions  reached  here  in  Old  Testament  literature 
are  less  conservative  than  in  the  New.  While  the  love  of  Isaac 
and  Rebecca  v^ill  live  in  literature,  it  lives  nowhere  else,  for  their 
union  was  in  fact  the  coalescence  of  two  tribes  bearing  these 
names.  The  patriarchs  of  Genesis  can  not,  in  general,  be  re- 
garded as  real  persons. 

These  gentlemen  are  lost  in  the  fog  of  their  own  con- 
ceit. The  love  of  Isaac  and  Rebekah  will  live  as  a  reality 
in  the  minds  and  hearts  of  many  millions  of  believers, 
vv^hen  the  names  of  these  professors  shall  have  been  for- 
gotten by  their  own  posterity.  And  as  for  Adam,  Noah, 
Jacob  and  Joseph,  they  are  known  and  honored  as  real 
persons  by  millions  of  people  to  a  single  one  who  has 
ever  heard  of  these  professors,  o  ever  will  hear  of  them. 
"Lord,  give  us  a  good  conceit  of  ourselves,"  is  a  prayer 
not  needed  by  our  "modern  scientific  critics"  of  the  Old 
Testament. 


[Apr.  5,  1902.] 

PRESIDENT    HARPER    ON    SACRIFICE. 

President  Llarper's  "Constructive  Studies  in  the 
Priestly  Element  in  the  Old  Testament"  shows  him  to 
be  more  radical  in  criticism  than  does  any  other  of  his 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  381 

publications  that  1  have  seen.  In  nothing,  perhaps,  does 
he  follow  so  unquestioningly  his  German  teachers  as  in 
his  accounts  of  animal  sacrifice.  On  this  subject  his 
most  constantly  quoted  authorities  are  Wellhausen  and 
his  imitators,  such  as  Kent  and  Menzies.  Speaking  of 
sacrifice  in  the  early  times,  he  says : 

At  first  this  was  a  social  meal,  a  banquet  in  which  the  offerer 
and  his  friends  participated,  and  to  which  the  deity  was  invited. 
There  are  frequent  references  to  such  sacrificial  meals  in  which 
the  members  of  a  family,  or  of  a  clan.  or.  indeed,  of  a  whole 
nation,  took  part.  This  meal  was  full  of  joy,  sometimes  boister- 
ous. Those  who  participated  were  eating  and  drinking  with 
the  deity;  it  was  a  communion  of  the  worshiper  and  his  god. 

If  this  had  been  said  of  sacrificial  feasts  among  the 
heathen,  we  might  pass  it  by  without  dispute,  for  almost 
every  imaginable  folly  has  been  connected  with  heathen 
sacrifices  :  but  the  author  shows  that  he  refers  to  sacri- 
fice as  practiced  by  the  patriarchs  and  early  prophets  of 
the  Old  Testament,  by  citing  in  support  of  his  assertions 
none  but  passages  in  Genesis,  i  Samuel  and  2  Chron- 
icles. His  first  citation  is  the  account  in  Genesis  18  of 
Abraham's  entertainment  of  the  three  angels,  in  which 
no  sacrifice  at  all  was  ofTered,  and  in  which  the  thought 
of  "eating  and  drinking  with  the  deity"  was  not  hinted 
at ;  for  Abraham  took  the  three  visitors  to  be  no  more 
than  human  beings  until  after  the  feast  was  over.  If  it 
is  the  "modern  scientific"  way  of  proving  a  proposition, 
to  quote  a  passage  in  which  the  subject  of  the  proposi- 
tion is  neither  mentioned  nor  hinted  at,  this  may  serve  as 
a  specimen. 

The  second  citation  is  from  i  Sam.  i  :  3-8,  which 
describes  the  annual  feast  of  Elkanah's  family.  In  this 
instance  there  was  a  sacrifice,  that  of  a  peace-ofTering,  a 
part  of  which  was  alwavs  eaten  bv  the  offerer  and  his 


382  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

family,  but  there  is  not  a  word  said  about  the  deity  being 
invited,  neither  was  the  meal  "full  of  joy."  It  was  quite 
otherwise,  on  account  of  the  jealousy  between  Elkanah's 
two  wives.  And  if  any  of  the  family  had  the  idea  that 
it  was  ''a  communion  of  the  worshiper  with  his  god," 
nothing  is  said  about  it  in  the  text.  It  is  a  new  kind 
of  exegesis  which  makes  a  text  prove  something  by  say- 
ing nothing  about  it.  Why  the  terms  ''deity"  and  "god," 
in  this  extract,  are  spelt  with  small  initial  letters  is  not 
explained. 

The  thh'd  reference  is  to  the  sacrificial  feast  prepared 
by  Samuel  on  the  hilltop  at  Ramah,  in  anticipation  of 
God's  promise  to  show  him  that  day  the  man  who  was 
to  be  king  of  Israel.  Samuel  invited  the  thirty  elders, 
and  he  invited  Saul ;  but  there  is  not  a  word  said  about 
his  inviting  "the  deity."  The  thirty  elders  communed 
with  their  future  king,  and  he  with  them ;  but  there  is  no 
intimation  that  they  were  communing  with  their  "god." 
The  occasion  was  not  "full  of  joy,"  but  full  of  per- 
plexity, for  no  man  present  except  Samuel  understood 
what  it  all  meant.  This  is  another  example  of  the  same 
kind  of  exegesis. 

Finally,  our  author  refers  to  i  Chron.  i6:  1-3,  where 
we  find  David,  after  bringing  the  ark  into  Jerusalem, 
ofifering  burnt-ofterings  and  peace-ofiferings,  and  then 
giving  to- every  one  of  the  men  and  women  who  were 
present  a  loaf  of  bread,  a  portion  of  flesh  or  wine,  it  is 
uncertain  which,  and  a  cake  of  raisins,  and  blessing  them 
in  the  name  of  Jehovah.  Apart  from  the  sacrifice  itself, 
not  one  of  the  elements  mentioned  by  President  Harper 
is  hinted  at  on  this  occasion.  Thus  endeth  the  Scripture 
proofs  of  the  wild  statements  quoted  at  the  beginning  of 
this  article. 

In  the  next  paragraph  on  the  same  page  (I  am  quot- 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  383 

ing  from  page  4),  President  Harper  says:  "In  later  times 
sacrifice  became  more  formal,  and  gradually  grew  into 
an  exclusively  religious  act." 

If  there  ever  was  a  time  when,  in  the  practice  of 
patriarchs  and  prophets,  or  of  those  who  accepted  their 
teaching,  it  was  an.ything  else  than  an  exclusively  relig- 
ious act,  the  proof  is  not  forthcoming  in  this  book; 
neither  can  President  Harper,  or  any  other  man,  make 
it  come  forth.  There  are  other  statements  about  sacri- 
fice in  this  book  which  are  as  far  from  the  truth  as  these 
which  I  have  mentioned,  but  I  have  said  enough  to  show 
what  kind  of  teaching  this  famous  professor  is  trying  to 
inject  into  the  advanced  classes  of  our  Sunday-schools. 
If  we  follow  him,  we  move  at  every  step  away  from  the 
Bible. 


[Apr.  5.  1902.] 

HERESY-HUXTIXG. 

Some  people  have  very  confused  ideas  about  hunt- 
ing for  heresy,  and  about  Christian  liberty.  If  a  man 
advances  and  seeks  to  propagate  teaching  which  I  regard 
as  very  injurious,  if  not  ruinous,  and  I  assail  it  with 
vigor,  such  vigor  as  he  feels  unable  to  resist  on  the 
merits  of  the  question,  it  is  common  for  him  and  his 
friends  to  cry  out,  "Heresy-hunter  I  Pleresy-hunter  I"  If 
a  lot  of  us  should  go  prying  into  some  man's  utterances 
to  find  something  wrong,  somewhat  as  \\'.  T.  ^^loore's 
hounds  kept  up  a  yelping  all  night  because,  as  the  old 
darkey  said,  "dey  smell  somethin',  but  can't  'zac'ly  locate 
it,"  we  might  be  charged  with  hunting  for  heresy ;  but 
if  those  hounds  had  seen  a  fox  coming  out  of  some 
man's  hen-roost,  nobody  would  have  objected  to  their 
giving  him  chase.     The  fox  might  cry  out  for  personal 


384  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

liberty,  and  say,  "I  have  just  as  good  a  right  to  take  a 
chicken  as  you  have  to  take  a  fox,"  nevertheless,  the 
common  judgment  of  mankind  would  say  that  to  chase 
the  fox  away  would  be  a  righteous  act.  Out  West  there 
are  bear-hunters.  They  go  creeping  around  among  the 
hills  and  rocks  trying  to  slip  up  on  a  bear  and  take  the 
advantage  of  him.  In  this  they  are  like  real  heresy- 
hunters.  But  if  a  man  is  walking  along  the  public  road, 
and  meets  a  bear  reared  on  his  hind  legs,  and  reaching 
for  him  with  his  fore  paws,  there  is  bound  to  be  a  fight 
or  a  foot-race;  and  if  the  man  should  fight  the  bear, 
nobody  could  on  this  account  call  him  a  bear-hunter. 
The  bear  might  say,  "I  am  free,  and  have  as  much  right 
on  this  road  as  you  have,"  and  the  man  could  answer,  'T 
am  free,  too,  and  have  as  much  right  on  this  road  as 
you  have."  And  if  the  man  should  also  say,  ''You  are 
after  hugging  me,  and  you  hug  everybody  you  can  get 
hold  of,  so  I  will  put  a  bullet  through  you,"  the  average 
citizen  would  say  that  the  man  was  in  the  right.  So,  if 
heresy  does  not  want  to  be  shot  at,  it  should  play  sly  and 
not  walk  out  into  the  public  road. 


[Apr.  5,  1902.] 

CHICKEN  COCKS  BANISHED. 

Bro.  Benedict,  of  JNIichigan,  sends  me  a  clipping 
from  the  Chicago  American,  in  which  a  correspondent 
of  that  paper,  writing  from  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  gets  off 
the  following  piece  of  ancient  history: 

While  reading  in  the  Aiuerican  of  the  dramatization  of  the 
story  of  the  Saviour's  betrayal,  arrest,  trial  and  crucifixion,  I 
was  reminded  of  the  not  very  widely  known  fact — somewhat 
curious,  though  not  at  all  important — that  there  were, no  "cock 
Growings"  in  Jerusalem  on  that  eventful  night,  as,  by  a  religious 
law  of  the  Jews,  all  cocks  were  banished  from  the  city  during- 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  385 

the  celebration  of  the  feast  of  the  Passover.  The  blowing  of  a 
trumpet  at  the  changing  of  the  Roman  military  watch  at  mid- 
night and  at  3  o'clock  a.  m.,  were  called,  respectively  by  the 
Jews  the  first  and  second  "cock  crowings."  And  the  Biblical 
statement,  "And  immediately  the  cock  crew,"  probably  means 
that  just  at  that  time  (midnight)  the  watch  was  being  changed 
and  the  sound  of  the  trumpet  was  heard.         H.  A.  BI'shxell. 

Mr.  Bushnell  docs  not  tell  us  where  he  found  this 
piece  of  information  about  the  banishment  of  cocks.  I 
suppose  he  found  it  in  the  same  chapter  and  the  next  verse 
after  that  which  says  that  all  sapheads  who  wrote  for 
newspapers  were  hang^ed  before  the  Passover  began.  If 
they  had  been,  and  the  breed  thus  extirpated,  it  would 
have  saved  modern  newspaper  readers  some  waste  of 
time.  But  then  those  Jews  who  were  such  sapheads  as  to 
take  the  blowing  of  a  trumpet  for  the  crowing  of  a  cock, 
ought  to  have  been  hanged  with  the  correspondents. 
The  fool-killer  must  have  been  out  of  place  just  at 
that  time.  Peter  must  have  been  one  of  the  unfor- 
tunates, for  he  took  the  blowing  of  the  trumpet  to  be 
the  crowing  of  a  cock,  and  went  out  and  wept  bitterly. 
He  ought  to  have  butted  out  his  brains,  if  he  had  any, 
against  the  first  stone  wall.  But  may  it  not  be  possible 
that  when  the  order  w^as  issued  for  all  the  cocks  to  leave 
town,  one  old  rooster,  not  being  notified,  stuck  to  his 
roost  and  crowed  after  the  old  fashion? 

What  will  be  the  next  piece  of  nonsense  which  unbe- 
Hevers  will  hatch  out  with  which  to  pelt  the  Bible?  Mr. 
Bushnell  will  have  to  try  his  hand  again. 


rjune  14.  1902.] 

PROFESSOR    WILLETT    OX    CREATION. 

I   now   take   up   what   Professor   W'illett   has   to   say 
through  the  Chicago  daily  paper  about  the  relation  be- 


386  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

tween  the  Babylonian  account  of  creation  and  that  in 
the  Book  of  Genesis.  After  mentioning  several  nations 
of  antiquity  that  had  traditions  respecting  the  origin  of 
the  world,  and  last  in  the  list,  the  Babylonians,  he  says : 
Among  die  laUer  people  there  is  found  a  narrative  of  crea- 
tion so  strikingly  Hke  that  of  Genesis  that  its  relationship  can 
not  be  questioned.  Yet  the  differences  are  great,  consisdng  for 
the  most  part  in  grotesque,  polytheistic  and  immoral  elements, 
which  are  entirely  absent  in  the  Genesis  narrative.  This  suggests 
the  explanation  of  the  problem.  The  narratives  which  first 
found  their  way  into  Hebrew  life  from  the  common  Semitic 
stock  had  the  same  general  form  and  features  which  we  see  in 
them  to-day.  But  the  religious  life  of  Israel  demanded  the 
purification  of  this  material  at  the  hands  of  the  prophetic  teach- 
ers, whose  task  it  Vv-as  to  prepare  the  nation  for  its  great  voca- 
tion of  a  prophetic  people  and  a  spiritual  teacher  of  the  world. 
No  vehicle  of  instruction  was  so  familiar  and  important  as  these 
narratives  of  creation.  To  purify  them  by  subtraction  of  their 
grosser  elements,  and  to  make  them  the  vehicle  for  teaching  the 
emphatic  and  impressive  truths  of  God's  personality,  unity  and 
relationship  to  Israel,  of  man's  supremacy  in  the  moral  order 
and  his  probationary  position — this  was  the  task  to  which  the 
inspired  teachers  of  Israel  gave  their  attention  at  a  most  impor- 
tant stage  of  the  national  education. 

Here  it  is  distinctly  assumed  that  these  Babylonian 
narratives  existed  prior  to  the  one  in  Genesis,  and  that 
the  latter  was  derived  from  the  former  by  "subtraction 
of  their  grosser  elements;"  that  is,  by  leaving  out  what 
is  said  of  the  heathen  gods,  and  ascribing  the  whole 
work  of  creation  to  the  God  of  Israel.  This  was  done, 
not  by  Moses,  for  the  crooked  critics  all  deny  that  Moses 
had  anything  to  do  with  the  composition  of  Genesis,  but, 
in  the  verbose  style  of  the  Professor,  by  "the  prophetic 
teachers  whose  task  it  was  to  prepare  the  nation  for  its 
great  vocation  of  a  prophetic  people,  and  a  spiritual 
teacher  of  the  world."  He  might  just  as  well  have  said 
what  he  meant,  that  this  was  done  by  the  hypothetical  J, 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  387 

who  wrote  about  six  or  seven  hundred  years  after 
Aloses,  and  P,  who  wrote  three  or  four  centuries  later. 
To  these  two  imaginary  writers  are  expressly  ascribed 
the  first  and  second  chapters  of  Genesis.  These  two 
writers  had  no  revelation  on  the  subject,  and  what  they 
wrote  is  not  to  be  taken  as  matter  of  fact.  They  had 
nothing  to  go  by  but  the  I  Babylonian  narrative,  and  they 
did  nothing  with  this  except  to  subtract  from  it  its  poly- 
theistic elements. 

\Miether  there  is  any  truth  in  this  theory  or  not,  can 
be  settled,  I  think,  by  any  man  who  has  common  sense 
and  will  use  it  in  a  sensible  way,  by  simply  comparing 
the  two  accounts.  Our  readers,  at  least  very  many  of 
them,  have  seen  this  Babylonian  account,  as  the  English 
version  of  it  has  appeared  in  many  critical  books  and 
magazine  articles,  though  probably  few  of  them  have 
read  it  on  account  of  its  tediousness  and  obscurity.  It  is 
about  as  easy  reading  as  that  many  lines  of  the  Koran. 
I  will  not  inflict  the  reader  with  a  copy  of  it,  but  I  will 
summarize  its  principal  features,  and  any  one  who 
chooses  to  verify  the  accuracy  of  my  summary  can 
easily  do  so.  I  follow  the  translation  given  by  Professor 
Sayce  in  his  ''Higher  Critics  and  the  ^lonuments,"  pages 
63-71.  The  story  goes  forward  in  chronological  order, 
as  follows : 

1.  There  is  an  abyss  of  w^aters  called  Tiamat,  which 
existed  before  there  was  any  being  in  heaven  or  any 
plant  on  the  earth.     There  were  no  gods  as  yet. 

2.  Tiamat  generates  the  great  gods,  and  then,  after 
a  long  time,  the  lesser  gods. 

3.  The  gods,  with  Merodach  as  leader,  make  war  on 
their  mother  Tiamat.  She  arms  herself  with  snakes 
whose  bodies  are  filled  with  poison,  raging  vampires, 
flashes  of  lightning,  the  scorpion-man,  the  fish-man,  the 


388  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

zodiacal  ram,  eleven  monsters,  etc.,  etc.,  and  marches 
them  forth  under  her  husband  Kingu,  who  walks  by 
her  side. 

4.  The  gods,  some  of  whom  are  afraid  of  Tiamat  and 
her  forces,  place  Merodach,  also  called  Bel,  in  supreme 
command.  He  arms  himself  with  a  club,  a  sword,  a 
bow,  and  lightning.  He  carries  a  net  in  which  to  enclose 
Tiamat.  He  makes  all  the  winds  blow  to  confound  her, 
mounts  his  chariot,  fastens  the  reins  to  his  side,  holds 
the  weapons  in  his  hands,  and  rushes  to  the  charge.  He 
seizes  Tiamat  by  the  waist,  trying,  I  suppose,  to  hug  her 
so  tight  that  she  could  not  breathe.  She  makes  a  loud 
outcry,  calls  on  her  husband  to  help  her,  "recites  an 
incantation,"  and  "casts  a  spell ;"  but  Merodach  throws 
his  net  over  her,  opens  her  mouth,  and  makes  her  swal- 
low an  evil  wind,  which  prevents  her  from  closing  her 
lips,  and  of  course  from  bawling  any  more.  "He  swung 
the  club,  he  shattered  her  stomach,  he  cut  out  her 
entrails,  he  dissected  her  heart,  he  took  her  and  ended 
her  life.  He  threw  down  her  corpse,  he  stood  upon  it." 
The  beings  who  had  backed  her  now  fled.  He  let  them 
escape  with  their  lives,  but  he  built  a  "fence"  around 
them  so  they  could  not  escape.  We  are  not  told  what 
kind  of  a  fence  this  was  ;  but  I  suppose  it  must  have 
been  a  close  plank  fence  with  a  barbed  wire  along  the 
top,  so  that  the  vampires  and  snakes  could  neither  climb 
over  nor  creep  through.  After  walloping  the  old  woman 
in  this  fashion,  and  fencing  in  her  supporters,  Merodach 
was  tired.  "He  rests  and  feeds  his  body" — takes  his 
dinner,  as  it  were.  What  kind  of  diet  he  fed  on  we  are 
not  told ;  but  I  should  think  that,  after  such  a  struggle, 
bacon  and  beans,  cornbread  and  buttermilk,  would  have 
been  in  order.  And  there  is  another  curious  thing  about 
it.     We  are  not  told  for  what  offense  the  gods  thus  fell 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  389 

!1 


afoul  of  their  old  mother.     The  worst  thing  that  I  ca 
see   in   her  behavior   is,   that   she   brought    forth   such   a 
brood  of  bad  children. 

5.  After  resting-  and  eating,  Bel  broke  the  dead  body 
of  his  mother  "like  a  dried  fish  in  two  pieces,"  'he  "took 
one-half  of  her  and  made  it  the  covering  of  the  sky," 
which  then  became  bright.  He  "established  a  great 
building  in  the  heaven,"  and  he  caused  Anu,  Bel  and  Ea 
to  inhabit  it  "as  their  stronghold."  Then  "he  fixed  the 
stars  that  corresponded  with  them,  even  the  twin  stars." 
He  "ordained  the  year,  appointing  the  signs  of  the 
Zodiac  over  it."  He  "founded  the  mansion  of  the  Su::- 
god,  who  passes  along  the  ecliptic,"  and  "illuminated  the 
IMoon-god  that  he  might  be  the  watchman  of  the  night, 
and  ordained  for  him  the  ending  of  the  night  that  the 
day  might  be  known." 

6.  It  was  now  time  for  other  gods  beside  Bel  Mero- 
dach  to  take  a  hand,  so  we  are  next  told  that  "at  that 
time  the  gods  in  their  assembly  created  the  beasts,  the 
cattle  of  the  field  and  the  creeping  things." 

Here  the  story  ends.  Nothing  is  said  about  the  crea- 
tion of  man,  of  water  animals,  or  of  vegetation.  Neither 
is  Merodach  credited  with  the  creation  of  the  sun,  the 
moon  or  the  stars.  He  simply  arranged  the  stars  in 
constellations,  made  a  mansion  for  the  Sun-god  and 
lighted  up  the  :\Ioon-god.  The  heaven  and  the  earth 
were  in  existence  before  any  of  the  gods  were  born,  and 
of  course  no  god  created  them. 

This,  now,  is  the  string  of  nonsense  by  the  curtailing 
of  which  "the  prophetic  teachers  of  Israel"— that  is,  J 
and  P — drew  up  the  accounts  of  creation  in  the  Book  of 
Genesis!  Professor  Willett  may  believe  it  if  he  can,  and 
if  he  so  desires,  but  to  my  mind  it  would  be  about  as 
sensible  to  say  that  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son  was 


SHORT   ESSAYS   IN  390 

derived  from  Peck's  "Bad  Boy,"  or  from  Mark  Twain's 
''Torn  Sawyer." 

If  I  were  to  pass  judgment  on  this  "Creation  Epic," 
as  destructive  critics  fondly  call  it,  I  would  say  that  it 
was  written  by  some  unbeliever  in  the  gods  of  Babylon, 
some  Bob  IngersoU  of  that  day,  for  the  purpose  of  ridi- 
culing the  gods  out  of  existence  in  the  minds  of  the 
people.  Certainly  no  sensible  man  who  read  it  and  be- 
lieved it  could  ever  afterward  offer  incense  or  prayer  to 
any  one  of  the  brutal  gang. 

This  is  not  all.  I  scarcely  think  that  the  craziest  of 
the  critics  would  claim  that  this  satire  on  the  Babylonian 
gods  was  written  before  the  days  of  Moses.  It  is  only 
after  robbing  Moses  of  all  connection  with  the  Bible 
account  of  creation,  and  relegating  it  to  unknown  au- 
thors of  later  centuries,  that  they  can  claim  priority  for 
the  Babylonian  account.  For,  be  it  remembered,  this 
account  was  found  on  clay  tablets  dug  out  of  the  ruins 
of  Asurbanipal's  library  at  Nineveh.  But  Asurbanipal 
reigned  from  667  to  625  B.  C,  and  within  this  period  his 
library  building  was  erected  and  his  tablets  collected  or 
written.  There  is  no  historical  evidence  that  these  crea- 
tion tablets  had  been  in  existence  for  any  considerable 
period  prior  to  this.  But  Moses  lived  at  least  seven  hun- 
dred years  earlier,  and  if  he  wrote  the  Book  of  Genesis, 
his  account  preceded  by  a  long  interval  this  Babylonian 
satire.  And  if,  as  is  highly  probable,  Moses  received  the 
account  of  creation  either  from  oral  tradition  or  in  a 
written  form,  this  carries  the  origin  of  it  back  to  a  still 
earlier  date.  The  critical  theory  on  the  subject,  then, 
although  it  has  been  adopted  by  men  who  ought  to  have 
more  judgment,  is  but  a  wild  and  groundless  conjecture 
resulting  from  their  equally  groundless  analytical  theory 
of  the  Pentateuch. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  391 

I  July  5.  1902.] 
ROBBING    JOSHUA. 

Professor  Willett  has  contributed  another  article  to 
the  Sunday  edition  of  the  Chicago  Record-Hcrdld.  This 
time  he  tries  to  rob  Joshua  of  the  credit  of  the  great 
miracle  at  Beth-horon.  He  denies  that  the  sun  and  the 
moon  stood  still  at  the  command  of  Joshua,  and  brings 
forward  the  usual  stock  arguments  of  rationalists  in 
support  of  his  denial. 

First,  of  course,  is  the  assertion  that  the  account  of 
this  miracle  is  a  quotation  from  the  Book  of  Jashar,  with 
the  im])lication  that  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  is 
not  responsible  for  it.  After  quoting  the  passage,  he 
says:  'Tt  is  at  once  seen  that  we  are  indebted  for  the 
whole  episode  of  the  arrested  sun  to  the  quotation  from 
a  work  called  in  the  text  'the  book  of  Jashar.'  *' 

Here  the  account  is  not  only  belittled  by  styling  it  an 
episode,  but  we  are  said  to  be  indebted  for  the  whole  of 
it  to  the  quotation  from  the  Book  of  Jashar.  This  as- 
sumption has  been  disproved  many  a  time,  but  I  must 
disprove  it  again.  Note,  then,  that  the  account  contains 
two  assertions  with  a  question  between  them.  The  first 
assertion  is  this :  "Then  spake  Joshua  to  Jehovah  in  the 
day  when  Jehovah  delivered  up  the  Amorites  before  the 
children  of  Israel ;  and  he  said  in  the  sight  of  Israel, 

Sun,  stand  thou  still  upon  Gibeon, 

And  thou.  Moon,  in  the  valley  of  Aijalon. 

And  the  sun  stood  still,  and  the  moon  stayed. 

Until  the  nation  had  avenged  themselves  of  their 
enemies." 

Then  follows  the  question  :  "Is  not  this  written  in  the 
book  of  Jashar?"  The  question  undoubtedly  refers  to 
the  preceding  assertion. 


392  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Then  follows  the  second  assertion :  "And  the  sun 
stayed  in  the  midst  of  heaven,  and  hasted  not  to  go  down 
about  a  whole  day.  And  there  was  no  day  like  that 
before  it  or  after  it,  that  Jehovah  hearkened  to  the  voice 
of  a  man:  for  Jehovah  fought  for  Israel"  (Josh.  lo: 
12-14). 

The  question,  'Ts  not  this  written  in  the  book  of 
Jashar?"  is  an  indirect  assertion  that  it  was;  that  is,  that 
the  lines  preceding  the  question  were  thus  written ;  but 
the  author  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  follows  this  by  the 
assertion  on  his  own  part  that  the  sun  did  stay  as  Joshua 
commanded,  and  that  it  stayed  "about  a  whole  day."  He 
is  then  just  as  responsible  for  the  truth  of  the  story  as 
if  he  had  made  no  allusion  whatever  to  the  Book  of 
Jashar.  This  independent  assertion  shows,  too,  that  he 
was  not  dependent  on  the  Book  of  Jashar  for  his  infor- 
mation. 

Obvious  as  these  facts  are.  Professor  Willett  says : 
"The  extent  of  the  quotation  it  is  somewhat  difficult  to 
determine."  And  yet,  on  the  supposition  that  our  Re- 
vised Version  is  correct,  he  virtually  concedes  that  it  is 
as  I  have  represented;  for  he  says:  "In  the  Revised 
Version  it  would  seem  to  be  confined  to  verses  12b  and 
13a."  He  also,  on  this  supposition,  agrees,  though  he 
expresses  himself  in  a  very  nebulous  way,  that  the  author 
of  Joshua  affirms  the  truth  of  the  story;  for  he  adds: 
"If  so,  it  would  indicate  that  the  writer  of  the  prose 
narrative  accepted  the  miraculous  explanation  of  Israel's 
victory  suggested  by  the  poetical  work  from  which  he 
quoted."  The  supposition,  however,  on  which  he  is 
forced  to  this  concession — that  is,  that  the  Revised  Ver- 
sion is  here  correct — he  tries  in  his  next  sentence  to  set 
aside,  or  to  render  at  least  doubtful ;  for  he  adds :  "But 
it  is  by  no  means  clear  that  the  whole  of  verses   12-14 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  393 

is  not  the  original  quotation.  This  seems  probable  upon 
comparison  with  the  Greek  text  of  the  LXX."  When 
I  read  this,  I  wondered  what  the  text  of  the  LXX.  con- 
tains to  justify  the  remark,  and  I  expected,  of  course,  to 
find  in  it  something  with  at  least  a  hint  in  that  direction ; 
but,  on  turning  to  it,  I  found  it  in  perfect  accord  with 
the  Revised  \>rsion,  with  this  exception,  that  it  omits 
entirely  the  reference  to  the  Book  of  Jashar.  And  now 
I  am  left  to  wonder  why  Professor  Willett,  in  aiming  to 
show  the  extent  of  the  quotation  from  the  Book  of 
jashar,  refers  his  Chicago  readers,  not  one  in  a  thousand 
of  whom  could  read  Greek,  or  ever  saw  the  LXX.,  to  a 
version  which  says  not  a  single  word  about  the  quotation. 
I  am  not  willing  to  think  him  so  tricky  as  to  do  this  if 
he  has  ever  examined  the  passage  in  the  LXX.  I  prefer 
to  suppose  that  he  saw  this  reference  in  a  work  by  some 
author  not  so  scrupulous  as  himself,  and  incautiously 
adopted  it.     He  should  be  more  cautious  hereafter. 

But  whoever  is  responsible  for  what  our  Professor 
styles  ''the  episode  of  the  arrested  sun,"  he  denies  that 
any  such  event  occurred,  or  that  any  miracle  was 
wrought  in  connection  with  Joshua's  victory.  He  says: 
"In  the  account  of  an  important  battle  there  has  been 
incorporated  a  quotation  from  a  poetic  book,  giving  in 
imaginative  and  graphic  language  a  description  of  the 
battle  intended  to  emphasize  its  significance  and  the 
religious  importance  of  L^rael's  victory." 

Again:  "Probably  few  modern  commentators  would 
venture  to  uphold  the  view  that  the  narrative  of  the 
arrested  sun  is  to  be  taken  otheiwise  than  as  a  literary 
feature,  adding  vividness  to  the  account  of  Joshua's  vic- 
tory." 

The  ''narrative  of  the  arrested  sun,"  then,  is  not  true, 
but  it  is  a  'iiterarv  feature."     It  might  be  illustrated  in 


394  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

this  way.  After  delivering  to  the  managing  editor  of 
the  Record-Herald  the  manuscript  of  his  essay,  Pro- 
fessor Willett  might  have  said,  I  wanted  to  add  a  para- 
graph after  the  press  was  started,  and  at  a  word  from, 
me  the  great  machine  was  made  to  stand  stih  a  whole 
hour.  The  foreman  of  the  pressroom,  hearing  after- 
ward that  he  had  said  this,  and  knowing  that  it  was  not 
true,  being  also  of  rather  an  irreverent  spirit,  demands 
of  him,  "See  here.  Professor,  what  made  you  tell  that  lie 
about  our  stopping  the  press  last  night  for  you  to  write 
another  paragraph?"  The  Professor  answers,  "It  was 
not  a  lie,  sir ;  it  was  only  'a  literary  feature.'  It  was  only 
a  description  in  'imaginative  and  graphic  language.' " 
All  the  big  yarns  that  Artemus  Ward  and  Bill  Nye  and 
Mark  Twain  used  to  tell  were  of  the  same  kind.  And 
this  is  the  estimate  put  upon  the  Book  of  Joshua  at  "the 
Disciples'  Divinity  House,  University  of  Chicago." 

In  arguing  against  the  occurrence  of  a  miracle  i:i 
this  instance.  Professor  Willett  makes  this  point:  "If  a 
miracle  were  to  be  wrought  in  connection  with  this  bat- 
tle, would  it  be  likely  to  occur  after  the  victory  had  been 
won,  and  when  the  only  remaining  object  was  the  de- 
struction of  the  Amorites?"  This  argument  shows  his 
want  of  appreciation  of  the  event.  Joshua  knew  very 
well  that  if  a  large  body  of  the  fleeing  army  should 
escape  into  walled  cities,  the  sieges  that  would  be  neces- 
sary in  order  to  take  these  would  greatly  prolong  the 
war  of  conquest,  and  the  loss  of  life  among  his  own 
men  ;  and  it  was  in  order  to  prevent  this  that  he  prayed 
for  a  prolongation  of  the  day.  This  appears  from  the 
context,  in  which,  after  the  capture  of  the  five  kings,  he 
ordered  that  they  be  shut  up  in  a  cave,  and  said  to  his 
men,  "Stay  not  ye ;  pursue  after  your  enemies,  and  smite 
the  hindmost  of  them ;  sufTer  them  not  to  enter  into  their 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  395 

cities :  for  Jehovali  your  God  hath  dchvered  them  into 
your  hand."  So  completely  was  this  accomplished  that 
all  the  chief  cities  of  southern  Canaan  fell  into  his  hand 
with  little  fighting  (23-40),  and  without  besieging  one 
of  them. 

I  can  not  see  why  this  miracle  of  the  ''arrested  sun" 
should  be  fixed  upon  by  unbelievers  for  adverse  criti- 
cism, rather  than  that  of  the  arrested  current  of  the 
overflowing  Jordan,  or  the  prostrated  walls  of  Jericho. 
Professor  Willett  speaks  of  it  as  if,  on  the  supposition 
of  its  reality,  "the  solar  system  was  arrested  by  an  all- 
inclusive  miracle."  But  what  disturbance  of  the  solar 
system  would  have  resulted  from  the  suspension  of  the 
earth's  rotation  on  its  axis?  About  as  much  as  would 
result  to  the  machinery  of  a  large  planing-mill  if  a 
workman  in  one  corner  should  stop  turning  his  grind- 
stone. And  to  stop  the  rotation  of  the  earth  would  have 
been  no  bigger  a  job  with  the  Lord  than  stopping  the 
grindstone  with  the  carpenter. 

If  I  were  required  to  work  either  of  Joshua's  mir- 
acles, and  had  my  choice,  I  would  about  as  soon  try  to 
stop  the  sun  as  to  cut  off  the  river  Jordan  by  stepping 
into  it.  or  to  blow  down  the  walls  of  Jericho  with  a  ram's 
horn.     Let  us  be  reasonable. 


[July  12,  1902.] 

HOW    IT    IS    DOXE. 

TJic  Outlook  for  June  21.  in  reviewing  a  work  on 
*'The  Philosophy  of  Religion,"  by  Professor  Royce,  of 
Harvard,  says  that  Professor  Royce  has  made  "the  most 
consistent  and  substantial  contribution  of  any  writer  of 
our  time  to  the  philosophy  of  religion."  He  is  an  evolu- 
tionist, and  he  attempts  to  show  "how  the  non-human 


396  SHORT    ESSAYS   IN 

came  to  evolve  the  human  type."  As  this  process  is  one 
of  the  mysteries  of  the  evolution  theory,  and  as  this 
professor,  who  is  a  Ph.  D.  and  an  LL.  D.  of  Aberdeen, 
and  v/ho,  according  to  The  Outlook,  has  made  the  great- 
est contribution  to  this  species  of  philosophy,  undertakes 
to  solve  this  mystery,  we  must  expect  his  solution  to  be 
clear,  and  to  be  well  supported  by  facts.  The  reader  will 
please  to  prepare  himself  for  it,  and  then  read  it  in  the 
following  paragraph : 

The  process  of  the  evolution  of  new  forms  of  consciousness 
in  nature  is  throughout  of  the  same  general  type  as  that  which 
we  observe  when  we  follow  the  evolution  of  new  sorts  of  plants, 
of  ideas  and  of  selfhood  in  our  own  life.  .  .  .  This  whole  process 
is  analogous  in  structure  and  in  result  to  the  recurrent  process 
of  the  conscious  will  that  has  found  what  it  has  to  do  in  its 
learning  of  new  arts  through  trial  and  error,  under  the  con- 
ditions of  rigid  selection  established  by  the  environment.  I  begin 
existence  in  the  organic  world  as  a  tentative  variation  within  its 
conscious  life,  and  with  my  survival  conditioned  on  conforming 
to  the  established  habits  of  nature. 

If  any  man,  after  reading  this,  pretends  not  to  under- 
stand ''how  the  non-human  came  to  evolve  the  human 
type,"  we  shall  have  to  seat  him  on  the  dunce-block. 
Take  an  illustration :  The  tadpole  began  existence  in  the 
organic  world  as  a  tentative  variation  within  its  con- 
scious life,  and  with  his  survival  conditioned  upon  con- 
forming to  the  established  habits  of  nature;  and  that 
explains  how  he  turned  to  a  frog. 


[Oct.  14,  1902.] 

THE    GHOST    OF    GALILEO. 

For  many  years  after  the  close  of  our  Civil  War, 
certain  politicians,  when  they  wdshed  to  arouse  passion 
in  favor  of  their  party,  instead  of  defending  it  by  argu- 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM 


39; 


ment.  were  accused  of  waving  the  bloody  shirt.  In  a 
similar  way,  certain  skeptics  and  half  skeptics  are  con- 
stantly parading  the  ghost  of  Galileo  to  scare  men  who 
call  in  question  their  "advanced  ideas."  Every  half- 
fledged  "higher  critic"  who  writes  a  piece  for  the  papers 
these  days,  is  sure  to  warn  you  against  opposing  the 
march  of  modern  scientific  Bible  study,  lest  you  re-enact 
the  part  of  those  who  persecuted  Galileo  for  saying  that 
the  sun  stands  still,  and  the  earth  revolves  around  it.  In 
this  way  Galileo's  ghost  keeps  constantly  stalking  around 
through  the  magazines  and  newspapers,  seeking  green- 
horns whom  he  may  frighten.  In  "^Macbeth,"  Banquo  o 
ghost  would  not  "down;"  in  the  comedy  of  criticism, 
Galileo's  ghost  is  not  permitted  to  "down."  The  small 
critics  can  not  do  v.'ithout  him.  Sometimes,  when  you 
don't  scare  at  Galileo's,  they  bring  up  Savonarola's  and 
Bruno's.  The  witch  of  Endor  was  not  "in  it,"  compared 
with  these  dealers  in  familiar  spirits.  And  what  is  the 
point  in  it  all?  \Miy,  said  Bob  Ingersoll,  you  men  who 
still  believe  in  the  Christian  religion,  and  cry  out  against 
me,  are  like  the  priests  who  persecuted  Galileo — you  are 
clogging  the  wheels  of  progress,  and  if  you  don't  get  out 
of  the  road  they  will  run  over  you.  Yes,  says  the  critic 
v/ho  has  gone  about  half  way  over  to  Bob.  I  am  Galileo; 
I  have  discovered  new  truth,  and  you  take  me  to  be  a 
heretic  :  you  are  only  persecuting  Galileo.  For  ever  and 
ever  the  cranks  Avho  have  discovered  a  mare's  nest  are 
the  Galileos  of  the  age,  and  the  "mossbacks"  who  con- 
tend that  it  is  nothing  but  a  mare's  nest,  are  the  obstruc- 
tionists who  lag  behind  and  persecute  the  prophets.  I 
believe  that  this  game  of  ghost  has  been  played  for  all 
that  it  is  worth  ;  but  watch  the  papers  and  you  will  see 
it  again  before  long.  Men  without  arguments  are  com- 
pelled to  use  it,  or  keep  silent. 


398  SHORT   ESSAYS  IN 

[July  12,  1902.] 

GOMER. 

I  am  requested  to  answer  the  following  question: 

How  may  we  reconcile  Hos.  i  :  2,  3  and  2:1-3  with  God's 
law  of  unity  and  with  his  law  of  monogamous  marriage?     e. 

As  I  understand  the  first  three  chapters  of  Hosea, 
there  is.  nothing  in  them  to  be  reconciled  to  God's  law. 
True,  if  the  command  to  Hosea,  "Go,  take  unto  thee  a 
wife  of  whoredom  and  children  of  whoredom,"  stood  by 
itself,  we  should  understand  that  the  wife  to  be  taken 
was  already  guilty  of  whoredom,  and  that  she  already 
had  children  born  to  her  while  leading  this  life.  But  the 
latter  implication  is  forbidden  by  the  fact  that  the  chil- 
dren evidently  referred  to  were  born,  as  the  rest  of  the 
chapter  shows,  after  the  marriage,  and  they  were  all  the 
legitimate  children  of  Hosea.  The  idea  advanced  by 
some  writers,  that  he  had  doubts  about  some  of  them 
being  his,  is  absolutely  groundless.  There  is  not  a  hint 
of  anything  of  the  kind  in  the  text.  H,  then,  the  chil- 
dren whom  he  was  to  take,  were  to  be  his  own,  and  not 
the  ofif spring  of  sin,  why  are  they  and  their  mother 
called  "a  wife  of  whoredom  and  children  of  whore- 
dom"? The  reason  is  plainly  given  in  the  text:  "For  the 
land  doth  commit  great  whoredom,  departing  from  Jeho- 
vah." While  the  people  to  which  the  woman  Gomer 
belonged,  and  to  which  her  children  when  born  belonged, 
was  given  to  whoredom  against  God,  and  she  and  her 
children  were  no  exceptions  to  this,  she  was  a  wife  of 
whoredom,  and  they  children  of  whoredom  in  the  same 
sense  that  all  the  people  were. 

The  married  life  of  Hosea,  let  it  be  distinctly  noted, 
as  it  is  described  in  the  first  chapter,  continuing  till  the 
birth  of  the  third  child,  is  without  blemish. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  399 

The  address  of  Jehovah  in  the  second  chapter,  begin- 
ning with  the  words,  "Plead  with  your  mother,  plead: 
for  she  is  not  my  wife,  neither  am  I  her  husband,"  is 
addressed,  as  its  contents  clearly  indicate,  to  individual 
Israelites  with  reference  to  the  nation  personified  as 
their  mother.  Che  had  committed  adultery,  but  Gomer, 
the  wife  of  the  prophet,  had  not. 

The  third  chapter  opens  with  these  words:  "And 
Jehovah  said  to  me.  Go  yet,  love  a  woman  beloved  of  her 
friend,  and  an  adulteress,  even  as  Jehovah  loveth  the 
children  of  Israel,  though  they  turn  unto  other  gods, 
and  love  cakes  of  raisins.  So  I  bought  her  to  me  for 
fifteen  pieces  of  silver,  and  a  homer  of  barley,  and  a 
half  homer  of  barley:  and  I  said  to  her.  Thou  shalt 
abide  for  me  many  days :  thou  shalt  not  play  the  harlot, 
and  thou  shalt  not  be  any  man's  wife:  so  will  I  be 
toward  thee." 

Here  the  prophet  is  plainly  told,  not  to  marry,  but  to 
love  a  woman  who  was  at  the  time  an  adulteress.  She 
was  a  slave,  as  is  implied  in  his  buying  her  for  money 
and  some  barley.  He  keeps  her  from  the  embraces  of 
other  men,  but  he  does  not  make  her  his  own  wife.  He 
promises  that  he  will  be  toward  her  as  he  requires  her 
to  be  toward  other  men.  The  case  is  plainly  this,  that 
he  loves  an  abandoned  woman  sufhciently  to  buy  her  out 
of  slavery,  and  to  guard  her  against  a  return  to  the  life 
from  which  he  had  rescued  her.  Her  former  bad  life 
and  her  rescue  from  it  are  made  symbols  of  Israel's 
coming  misery  and  her  rescue  from  it :  for  Jehovah  goes 
on  to  say:  "For  the  children  of  Israel  shall  abide  many 
days  without  king,  and  without  prince,  and  without  sac- 
rifice, and  without  pillar,  and  without  ephod  or  tera- 
phim  :  afterward  shall  the  children  of  Israel  return,  and 
seek  Jehovah  their  God,  and  David  their  king :  and  shall 


400  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

come  with  fear  unto  Jehovah  and  to  his  goodiess  in  the 
latter  days." 

It  suits  the  whim  of  certain  interpreters  to  assume 
that  this  woman  of  the  third  chapter  is  Gomer,  who  had 
abandoned  her  husband  after  the  birth  of  her  third  child, 
had  been  reduced  to  such  misery  in  her  reckless  life  as 
to  be  sold  as  a  slave,  and  that  the  prophet  was  required 
to  love  her  again  and  remarry  her.  But  there  is  not  the 
slightest  hint  that  she  was  the  same  woman ;  and  the 
absence  of  all  allusion  to  her  as  such,  which  certainly 
would  have  appeared  in  the  text  if  such  had  been  the 
conception  of  the  writer,  is  sufficient  proof  that  she  was 
not. 

The  conceit  which  is  floating  around  among  certain 
writers,  that  Hosea  learned  the  love  of  God  for  his  peo- 
ple by  the  infelicities  of  his  own  household,  and  his 
foolish  weakness  in  recalling  and  loving  again  a  wife  so 
utterly  degraded,  is  a  specimen  of  sentimental  froth.  It 
has  been  whipped  up  in  the  interest  of  the  denial  that 
the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  had  as  yet  been  written,  from 
which  especially  Hosea  could  have  learned  how  God 
loved  Israel. 


[Oct.  14,  1902.] 

WISER  THAxN   PETER. 

The  following  query  presents  a  single  instance  of  the 
attempts  made  by  recent  critics  to  discredit  the  utter- 
ances of  inspired  men: 

In  the  exposition  of  September  7,  Sunday-school  lesson,  "The 
Prophet  Like  Moses,"  one  of  our  church  papers  remarks :  "An 
allusion  to  the  Messiah  in  these  verses  is  of  a  remote  sort,  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  understand  them  to  refer  to  any  one  except 
the  immediate  successor  of  Moses."  Is  this  a  correct  rendering, 
and  is  the  Lesson  Committee  astray  in  naming  this  lesson,  and 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  401 

in  selecting  as  the  Golden  Text,  "This  is  of  a  truth  that  prophet 
that  should  come  into  the  world"?  W.  P.  Keeler. 

Chicago,  111.,  Sept.  12,  1902. 

If  we  had  nothing  on  the  subject  except  the  words 
of  Moses  (Deut.  18:  15),  we  might  not  be  able  to  say 
positively  to  what  prophet  he  had  reference.  Yet  the 
Jewish  interpreters,  who  had  nothing  else,  reached  the 
conclusion  that  he  referred  to  the  Messiah,  as  is  plain 
from  the  words  of  the  "Golden  Text"  quoted  by  Bro. 
Keeler.  These  are  the  words  of  the  Galileans  when  they 
witnessed  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  (John  6:  14). 
They  doubtless  reached  this  conclusion  from  the  con- 
sideration that,  among  the  later  prophets  of  the  Old 
Testament,  there  was  not  one  who  was  in  any  special 
degree  "like  Moses." 

It  is  usual  with  the  critics  who  consider  themselves 
better  interpreters  of  the  Old  Testament  than  the  apos- 
tles were,  to  say  that  the  reference  of  Moses  is  not  to 
any  individual  prophet,  but  to  the  line  of  prophets  which 
God  raised  up  in  Israel;  but  if  he  had  meant  this  he 
would  have  used  v/ords  indicative  of  this  meaning,  in- 
stead of  saying  "a  prophet."  The  "church  paper"  quoted 
by  T>ro.  Keeler  rejects  this  interpretation,  and  says: 
"There  is  no  reason  to  understand  them  [the  words  of 
Moses]  to  refer  to  any  one  except  the  immediate  suc- 
cessor of  ]\Ioses."  According  to  him,  then,  there  is  no 
reason  to  luiderstand  them,  as  the  "modern  critics"  do 
with  one  accord,  as  referring  to  a  line  of  prophets.  This 
is  hard  on  the  critics.  It  represents  them,  one  and  all,  as 
adopting  an  interpretation  for  which  there  is  no  reason. 
They  have  done  the  same  in  many  other  instances.  But 
if  there  is  no  reason  for  this,  what  reason  is  there  for 
referring  the  words  to  "the  immediate  successor  of 
Moses"?     Joshua,  who  was  the  immediate  successor  of 


402  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Moses,  figured  eminently  as  a  military  leader,  but  he  is 
not  to  be  compared  with  Moses  in  his  capacity  as  a 
prophet.  There  is  no  reason  then  to  suppose  that  by  the 
''prophet  like  unto  Moses,"  Joshua  was  meant.  Here 
are  two  hypotheses,  then,  for  which  there  is  "no  reason ;" 
but  for  the  early  Jewish  interpretation  there  was  a 
reason,  and  so,  after  all,  the  Jewish  rabbis  were  better 
interpreters  than  their  modern  critics. 

But  those  of  us  who  believe  that  the  apostle  Peter, 
in  his  first  and  second  discourses  recorded  in  Acts,  spoke 
as  he  was  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  have  no  need  of 
such  reasoning  on  this  subject,  for  he  settles  it  for  us  by 
divine  authority,  that  the  reference  of  Moses  was  to  the 
Christ.  Only  those  who  are  wiser  than  Peter,  and  who 
are  constantly  asserting  that  the  apostles  adopted  un- 
reasoning rabbinical  interpretations  of  the  Scriptures, 
can  call  this  in  question.  When  they  give  some  proof 
that  they  are  better  interpreters  than  the  inspired  apos- 
tles, it  will  be  soon  enough  to  pay  respectful  attention 
to  them.  Until  then  their  vaporing  assumptions  should 
be  allowed  to  pass  like  the  idle  wind.  They  are  in  reality 
included  in  the  very  winds  of  which  the  apostle  speaks 
when  he  warns  us  not  to  be  "tossed  to  and  fro  and 
carried  about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine"   (Eph.  4:  14). 


[Oct.  14,  1902.] 

EXIT    ABRAHAM. 

A  correspondent  of  Tlic  Outlook  takes  the  editor  to 
task,  in  the  issue  for  September  20,  for  representing  the 
story  of  Abraham  offering  Isaac  as  a  legend.  But  the 
editor  stands  his  ground.     He  says : 

That  the  narrative  of  the  trial  of  Abraham,  by  a  divine  com- 
mand to  sacrifice  his  son,  is  legendary,  must  be  admitted,  if  one 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  403 

accepts  the  results  of  learned  researches  accepted  by  such  men 
as  Professor  Paton,  of  Hartford  Theological  Seminary,  and 
Professor  Curtis,  of  Yale  Divinity  School.  These  evangelical 
scholars  agree  with  many  others  in  holding  the  names  of  the 
Hebrew  patriarchs  before  Moses  to  be  tribal  names,  not  personal. 

Yes ;  if  we  are  to  accept  the  "learned  researches"  of 
two  professor?  who  are  well  known  as  rejecting  as  false 
a  great  many  things  which  the  Bible  records  as  true. 
Why  did  not  the  editor  cite  the  latest  authority  on  Abra- 
ham, and  say  that  if  we  accept  the  learned  researches 
of  Professor  Cheyne,  it  must  be  admitted  that  Abraham 
was  a  myth  of  the  Chaldean  moon-god?  Cheyne  is  a 
higher  authority  than  either  Paton  or  Curtis,  or  both  put 
together.  And  why  any  "if"  about  the  matter?  \\'hy 
not  say  right  out,  that  there  never  was  such  an  individual 
as  Abraham — that  Jesus,  and  the  apostles,  and  Closes, 
and  all  the  prophets,  were  mistaken  in  thinking  there 
was  ;  and  that  the  learned  researches  of  modern  scholars, 
who  know  absolutely  nothing  about  Abraham,  except 
what  is  written  of  him  in  the  Scriptures,  are  to  be 
accepted  ? 

\\'e  must  suppose,  according  to  this  infidel  theory, 
that  when  Jesus  said  to  the  Jews,  "\^e  shall  see  Abra- 
ham, Isaac  and  Jacob  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  your- 
selves cast  out,"  he  meant  that  they  should  see  three  of 
their  old  ancestral  tribes  there.  When  Jesus  said,  ''Your 
father  Abraham  saw  my  day,  and  was  glad."  he  either 
knew  not  what  he  was  talking  about,  or  he  meant  that  a 
certain  old  Semitic  tribe  saw  his  day  and  was  glad.  So, 
when  he  quoted  a  conversation  between  Abraham  and 
the  rich  man  in  Hades,  it  was  not  an  individual  named 
Abraham,  but  the  old  Semitic  tribe,  that  carried  on  the 
corversation. 

In  the   r)Ook  of  Genesis,   Sarah  was  the  wife  of  a 


404  SHORT    ESSAYS   IN 

tribe,  and  not  of  an  individnal.  She  bore  the  tribe  a  son 
when  she  was  ninety  years  old,  and  when  she  died  the 
tribe  buried  her,  and  took  another  wife.  The  tribe 
Abraham  sent  to  Paddan-Aram  to  get  a  wife  for  the  tribe 
Isaac,  and  the  tribe  Esau  threatened  to  slay  the  tribe 
Jacob,  when  the  latter  tribe  went  to  the  city  of  Haran 
and  got  four  wives.  The  tribe  Abraham  finally  died 
when  it  was  175  years  old,  and  was  buried  in  the  cave 
of  Machpelah.  Hurrah  for  the  learned  researches  of 
Professor  Paton  and  Professor  Curtis,  and  for  the  ever- 
green credulity  of  Editor  Lyman  Abbott.  When  shall 
the  world  see  their  like  again? 


[Nov.  8,  1902.1 

THE    RESTORATION    OF    ALL    THINGS. 

There  is  no  passage  in  the  Scripture  more  constantly 
garbled  by  Universalists,  and  some  others,  than  Acts  3 : 
21,  in  which  the  expression  "the  restoration  of  all 
things"  occurs.  In  the  verse  as  usually  quoted,  Peter, 
speaking  of  Jesus,  says :  "Whom  the  heaven  must  re- 
ceive until  the  times  of  the  restoration  of  all  things;" 
and  it  is  claimed  that  by  the  restoration  of  all  things  is 
meant  the  restoration  of  the  whole  human  race  to  its 
primitive  condition.  But  all  these  Universalists  are  also 
evolutionists.  They  believe  that  the  human  race  was 
evolved  from  lower  animals,  and  especially  from  apes 
and  monkeys.  And  now  here  comes  James  Small,  of 
Indiana,  with  the  following  inquiry : 

I  want  the  force  of  the  Greek  on  the  word  "restoration."  If 
it  will  bear  out  the  idea  of  restoring  man  to  his  primitive  state 
of  innocence  and  strength  and  purity,  I  should  like  to  know  it. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  evolution  is  true,  and  our  immediate  an- 
cestors were  hairy  quadrupeds  and  treeclimbers,  the  work  after 
all  in  which  we  are  engaged  is  not  particularly  profitable,  seeing 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  40S 

we  are  only  restoring  man  to  monkeydom,   his  primitive  state, 
according  to  the  evokition  theory. 

That  is  a  center  shot.     Hit  them  again,  Bro.  Small. 

But  it  is  by  garbling  the  Scriptures  that  the  Univer- 
salian  evolutionists  have  exposed  themselves  to  Bro. 
Small's  merciless  fire.  They  quote  but  a  part  of  the 
sentence,  leaving  off  a  modifying  clause.  The  whole  of 
it  reads,  "Whom  the  heaven  must  receive  until  the  times 
of  restoration  of  all  things  whereof  God  spoke  by  the 
mouth  of  his  holy  prophets  who  have  been  since  the 
world  began."  In  other  words,  the  heaven  must  receive 
(and  retain)  Jesus,  until  all  things  which  have  been  pre- 
dicted by  God's  holy  prophets  since  the  world  began, 
shall  be  fulfilled.  This  is  a  totally  different  conception, 
and  it  is  time  that  preachers  of  all  classes  had  learned 
to  quote  the  passage  as  it  is. 


[Nov.  8,  1902.] 
THE    TIME    OF    THE    PUBLIC    ENTRY. 

John  F.  Pearce,  of  Danbury,  Conn.,  is  troubled  over 
what  appears  to  him  a  contradiction  between  John  and 
the  synoptic  writers  as  to  the  time  at  which  Jesus 
reached  Bethany  and  rode  thence  into  Jerusalem.  He 
asks  me  to  explain  the  matter.  In  seeking  to  do  so,  it  is 
best  to  take  up  the  account  in  John  and  understand  it 
clearly  before  we  look  at  those  in  the  other  Gospels.  We 
shall  thus  know  precisely  what  points  of  likeness  or 
unlikeness  exist  between  them. 

John's  first  statement  is  that  "six  days  before  the 
passover  Jesus  came  to  Bethany."  If  the  passover  began 
on  Friday,  which  is  certain,  though  it  has  been  ques- 
tioned by  a  few  writers,  then  six  days  before  the  pass- 
over  fixes  the  arrival  of  Jesus  at  Bethany  on  Sunday. 


4o6  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

This  follows  from  the  universal  custom  of  the  Jews,  in 
stating  the  number  of  a  series  of  days  or  years,  to 
include  in  the  aggregate  both  the  first  and  the  last,  even 
when  only  a  small  part 'of  either  was  actually  included. 
According  to  this  method,  a  count  of  six  days  ending 
Friday  must  begin  with  Sunday. 

John's  second  statement  is  that  "they  made  him  a 
supper  there,"  and  the  supper  was  the  one  during  which 
Mary  anointed  his  feet  with  costly  ointment.  Though 
not  explicitly  stated,  the  presumption  is  that  this  supper 
was  given  on  the  evening  after  his  arrival.  Then,  we 
are  told  that  "on  the  morrow  a  great  multitude  that  had 
come  to  the  feast,  when  they  heard  that  Jesus  was  com- 
ing to  Jerusalem,  took  branches  of  the  palm-trees  and 
went  forth  to  meet  him."  The  triumphal  entry  follows, 
and  the  day  was  Monday. 

Bro.  Pearce  says  that  he  has  "defended  Palm  Sun- 
day." But  if  John's  account  is  correct,  he  can  do  that 
no  longer.  It  is  palm  Monday,  if  it  is  palm  anything. 
Thus  one  of  the  Roman  Catholic  traditions,  which  is 
without  foundation  in  fact,  passes  aw^ay. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  the  synoptic  Gospels,  and  see  if 
they  differ  from  John's.  Mark  and  Luke  both  say  that 
'Svhen  they  drew  nigh  unto  Jerusalem,  unto  Bethphage 
and  Bethany,  at  the  mount  of  Olives,  he  sendeth  two  of 
his  disciples,  and  saith  to  them.  Go  your  way  into  the 
village  that  is  over  against  you,  and  straightway  as  ye 
enter  into  it  ye  shall  find  a  colt  tied  whereon  no  man 
ever  sat :  loose  him  and  bring  him."  The  public  entry 
immediately  follows.  Into  which  of  the  two  villages 
they  were  to  go,  neither  of  these  two  accounts  would 
enable  us  to  know.  But  Matthew  is  at  this  point  specific. 
He  says  nothing  about  Bethany,  but  says :  "When  they 
drew  nigh  to  Jerusalem,  and  came  to  Bethphage,  unto 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  407 

the  mount  of  Olives,  then  Jesus  sent  two  disciples,  say- 
ing to  them.  Go  into  the  village  that  is  over  against  you," 
etc. ;  which  shows  that  Bethphage  was  the  village  in 
which  they  fount!  the  colt.  The  two  villages  were  close 
together,  but  Bethphage,  as  its  recently  discovered  ruins 
attest,  was  nearer  to  Jerusalem. 

It  now  appears  that  all  three  of  the  synoptists  begin 
their  accounts  of  this  transaction  on  the  day  in  which 
the  ass  was  procured  and  the  ride  into  Jerusalem  took 
place.  They  say  nothing  as  to  what  day  of  the  week  it 
was,  or  how  long  before  the  passover.  The  ditterence, 
then,  between  them  and  John  is  only  this,  that  John 
mentions  the  arrival  of  Jesus  at  Bethany  the  day  pre- 
vious to  the  procuring  of  the  ass,  and  also  the  supper 
that  was  given  him  There  is  not  a  shadow  of  contra- 
diction or  of  inconsistency. 

But  this  is  not  the  whole  story.  While  [Mark,  like 
the  other  synoptics,  says  nothing  about  the  day  of  the 
week,  he  makes  a  series  of  chronological  statements, 
extending  from  the  day  of  the  public  entry  to  the  first 
dav  of  the  passover,  which  corroborate  perfectly  the  six 
days  of  John.  To  show  this  let  us  suppose  ^londay  to 
be  the  day  of  public  entry,  and  make  the  count.  He 
says,  at  the  conclusion  of  his  account  of  the  ride,  that 
Jesus  "entered  into  Jerusalem,  into  the  temple ;  and  when 
he  had  looked  round  about  upon  all  things,  it  being  now 
eventide,  he  went  out  to  Bethany  with  the  twelve"  (11: 
II)  This  brings  us  to  the  close  of  [Monday ;  and  it 
shows,  by  and  by,  that  the  public  entry  took  place  in  the 
afternoon.  ^lark  next  says  that  "on  the  morrow,  when 
they  were  come  out  from  Bethany,  he  hungered,"  and 
then  comes  the  incident  of  the  barren  fig-tree  (12-14). 
This  now  is  Tuesday.  They  go  into  the  city,  he  casts 
out   the   traders   whom    he   had   seen   there   the   evening 


4o8  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

before,  and  the  statement  follows  that  "every  evening 
he  went  forth  out  of  the  city"  (19).  Then  comes  the 
statement  that  "as  they  passed  by  in  the  morning,  they 
saw  the  fig-tree  withered  away  from  the  roots"  (20). 
This  is  Wednesday.  They  pass  on  into  the  city  (27), 
and  the  discussions  follow  which  occupy  the  rest  of  the 
eleventh  chapter  and  all  of  the  twelfth.  Then  he  goes 
out  to  the  mount  of  Olives,  and  delivers  the  discourse 
about  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  his  second  com- 
ing (13:1-37).  At  the  close  of  this  discourse,  still 
Wednesday,  Mark  says,  "Now  after  two  days  was  the 
feast  of  the  passover  and  the  unleavened  bread"  (14:  i ). 
But  "after  two  days"  from  Wednesday,  in  Jewish  count, 
would  be  Friday.  So  we  have  counted  in  Mark  five  con- 
secutive days — Monday,  Tuesday,  Wednesday,  Thurs- 
day and  Friday;  and  if  we  add  to  these  the  sixth  day 
previously  mentioned  by  John,  but  omitted  by  the  synop- 
tics, we  have  John's  account  reproduced. 

Let  me  say,  in  conclusion,  that  in  every  instance  of  a 
contradiction  charged  against  the  gospel  narratives,  a 
thorough  study  of  the  passages  involved  demonstrates 
the  falsity  of  the  charge. 


[Jan.  17,  1903.] 

THIS    MAN    HATH    DONE    NOTHING    AMISS. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  speeches  on  record  is 
that  of  the  dying  robber,  addressed  partly  to  his  fellow- 
robber,  and  partly  to  Jesus.  To  the  former  he  said, 
"Dost  thou  not  even  fear  God,  seeing  thou  art  in  the 
same  condemnation?  And  we  indeed  justly:  for  we  re- 
ceive the  due  reward  of  our  deeds:  but  this  man  hath 
done  nothing  amiss."  How  did  he  know  that  Jesus  had 
done  nothing  amiss?     He  could  not  have  learned  it  as 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  409 

Pilate  did,  by  the  course  of  his  trial,  for  this  the  robber 
had  not  heard ;  neither  had  he  heard  a  full  account  of 
it.  He  could  not  have  learned  it  from  the  demeanor  of 
Jesus,  since  the  three  had  been  led  out  together  and 
crucified  :  for  this,  remarkable  as  it  was,  could  not  prove 
that  his  past  life  was  blameless.  He  could  not  have 
learned  it  easily  after  his  own  arrest  and  imprisonment; 
for  it  is  not  likely  that  any  friend  of  Jesus  had  inter- 
viewed him.  The  only  probable  supposition  is  that  he 
had  learned  it  before  his  own  imprisonment. 

While  engaged  in  his  nefarious  business  as  a  robber, 
it  would  suit  his  plans  to  mingle  with  the  crowds  gath- 
ered around  Jesus  in  order  to  pick  out  men  to  rob  on 
their  way  to  their  homes  ;  and  in  this  way  he  would  hear 
Jesus  and  witness  his  miracles.  He  would  hear,  also, 
the  accusations  of  the  Pharisees,  and  witness  their  refu- 
tation. Like  the  publicans  and  harlots,  he  would  readily 
believe  that  this  man  had  done  nothing  amiss. 

It  is  not  improbable  that,  under  the  influence  of 
Jesus,  he  had  abandoned  his  life  as  a  robber,  and  had 
begun  to  lead  a  better  life  before  his  detection  and 
arrest.  In  this  case  his  conviction  that  Jesus  had  done 
nothing  amiss  would  be  deep  and  strong,  and  would  need 
only  a  suitable  occasion  to  call  forth  an  expression  of  it. 
All  this  helps  to  account  for  his  speech  ;  for  although, 
when  first  suspended  on  the  cross,  he  joined  with  his 
fellow  in  reproaching  Jesus,  being  irritated  because  his 
crucifixion  was  the  occasion  of  crucifying  them  the  same 
day,  the  remembrance  of  what  he  knew  of  Jesus  ac- 
counts for  his  speedy  repentance.  As  he  drew  near  to 
the  presence  of  God,  he  felt  ashamed  of  reproaching  one 
whose  life  had  been  free  from  misdeeds,  and  he  spoke 
out  in  his  defense. 


410  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

[Jan.  24.  1903-] 
"WHEN    THOU   COMEST    IN    THY   KINGDOM." 

This  clause  in  the  appeal  that  the  dying  robber  made 
to  the  dying  Jesus  is  even  more  remarkable  than  the  one 
we  commented  on  last  week,  "This  man  hath  done  noth- 
ing amiss."  How  could  he  believe  that  Jesus  would  yet 
come  in  his  kingdom,  when  he  saw  him  hanging  to  the 
cross  and  about  to  die?  This  belief  had  perished  out  of 
the  hearts  of  all  the  disciples  of  Jesus.  Their  hopes 
respecting  the  kingdom  were  all  crushed  in  abject  de- 
spair when  the  sentence  of  death  was  pronounced  by 
Pilate.  Even  Judas,  who  may  possibly  have  hoped  that 
Jesus  would  escape  from  those  to  whom  he  had  sold 
him,  when  he  heard  of  the  sentence,  was  so  overwhelmed 
with  remorse  and  despair  that  he  dared  not  live  to  wit- 
ness the  end.  How,  then,  could  this  robber  still  cling  to 
the  belief  that  Jesus  would  yet  come  in  his  kingdom? 
He  was  the  only  living  man,  so  far  as  we  can  know, 
who  still  clung  to  this  belief.  Was  it  because  he  had 
evidences  which  the  apostles  had  not — information 
which  they  had  not  received?  It  would  be  preposterous 
to  think  that  he  had.  Was  it  because  he  alone  of  all  men 
had  the  true  conception  of  the  kingdom,  that  conception 
which  we  now  enjoy,  and  which  the  apostles  enjoyed 
and  taught  after  the  next  Pentecost?  Was  it  because 
he  believed  that  Jesus  would  rise  from  the  dead,  and  had 
already  conceived  the  idea  which  his  actual  resurrection 
afterward  imparted  to  his  disciples,  that  he  would  then, 
as  victor  over  death,  proclaim  and  establish  a  military 
dominion  ?  Jesus  had  said  so  little  about  his  resurrec- 
tion that  even  the  apostles  did  not  expect  it,  and  it  is 
highly  improbable  that  this  robber  had  even  heard  of  his 
predictions  of  that  event.     What,  then,  was  it  that  im- 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  411 

parted  to  the  soul  of  the  robber  this  remarkable  behef, 
and  that  kept  it  ahve  even  when  Jesus  was  dying? 

Is  it  necessary  to  look  any  further  for  the  answer 
than  to  what  he  had  himself  heard  from  the  lips  of 
Jesus?  He  could  bear  witness  to  the  blameless  life 
which  Jesus  had  led,  he  had  witnessed  the  miracles  by 
which  Jesus  demonstrated  that  he  had  come  on  a  mission 
from  God,  and  he  knew  that  the  chief  burden  of  the 
great  Teacher's  preaching  was  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
which  he  was  to  set  up.  Being  free  from  the  preposses- 
sions which  biased  the  minds  of  Pharisees  and  scribes  as 
to  the  nature  of  the  kingdom,  he  believed  that  as  such  a 
man  as  Jesus  could  not  lie  or  be  deceived,  the  kingdom 
in  some  shape  or  form,  and  at  some  time,  and  in  some 
place,  would  certainly  be  established.  So,  when  at  last 
he  who  had  made  these  solemn  predictions  and  promises 
was  passing  through  the  agonies  of  death,  the  robber 
still  believed,  that  in  time,  he  knew  not  when,  in  some 
place,  he  knew  not  where,  and  in  some  form,  he  knew 
not  what,  the  kingdom  would  appear.  It  was  a  sublime 
faith  in  the  pledged  word  of  Jesus,  a  faith  which  neither 
life  nor  death  could  unsettle,  that  brought  forth  the 
w^ondrous  words :  "When  thou  comest  in  thy  kingdom." 
What  a  rebuke  this  to  the  faith  of  many  thousands  who 
now  stagger  at  little  obstacles,  falter  in  the  presence  of 
obscure  texts  of  Scripture,  turn  pale  at  the  ''opposition 
of  science  falsely  so  called,"  and  deny  the  Lord  rather 
than  suffer  with  him.  Let  us  sing  the  hymn,  ''Oh  for  a 
faith  that  will  not  shrink." 


[Jan.  31.  1903.] 
"REAIE^IBER    AIE." 
Not  the  least  remarkable  of  all  that  the  dying  robber 
said  is  his  appeal  to  the  dying  Lord,  "Jesus,  when  thou 


412  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

comest  in  thy  kingxlom,  remember  me."  And  why  re- 
member him?  Why  remember  a  dying  robber  who  with 
his  latest  words,  while  suspended  on  the  cross,  confessed 
that  he  was  receiving  the  "due  reward  of  his  deeds"? 
If  Jesus  should  come  in  his  kingdom,  and  should  have 
control  over  the  destiny  of  such  a  man,  why*  should  the 
latter  wish  to  be  remembered  by  him?  Why  did  he  not 
pray  to  be  forgotten?  Why  did  he  not  say,  "Pray  for- 
get that  you  ever  met  with  a  guilty  wretch  like  me.  Let 
me  droj)  into  oblivion,  and  not  be  numbered  among  those 
with  whom  thou  shalt  deal"?  For  if  Jesus  should  re- 
member him,  what  could  he  do  but  send  him  to  perdi- 
tion ? 

But  evidently  the  robber  used  the  word  "remember" 
in  a  pregnant  sense.  He  used  it  as  a  wife  does  when 
her  husband  is  starting  on  a  long  journey :  ''Husband, 
remember  me  ;  don't  forget  me.j"  He  used  it  as  a  beg- 
gar does,  who  says  to  a  benevolent  friend,  "When  you 
make  your  Christmas  presents,  remember  me ;"  or  as 
a  condemned  criminal,  who  appeals  to  the  Governor, 
"When  you  exercise  your  pardoning  power,  remember 
me."  He  wanted  to  be  remembered  in  mercy ;  to  be 
remembered  as  one  who,  though  he  had  spoken  unkind 
words  in  anger,  had  soon  repented  of  them,  and  rebuked 
the  continuous  revilings  of  his  companion.  To  be  re- 
membered as  the  one  who,  when  governor  and  priest 
and  scribe  and  all  the  rabble  were  crying  out  against 
him,  was  the  only  man  in  all  that  multitude  who  had 
said,  "This  man  has  done  nothing  amiss."  It  was  no 
time  for  qualifying  words,  or  for  giving  reasons.  The 
appeal  was  a  despairing,  and  yet  a  slightly  hopeful  call, 
in  the  briefest  words,  to  one  who  would  understand  all 
that  was  meant.  It  was  not  a  time  for  polite  words  or 
complimentary  titles.     He  does  not  say,  Lord  Jesus,  or 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  413 

Rabbi,  or  ^Master  ;  but,  as  if  lie  had  known  him  all  his 
life,  "Jesus" — "Jesus,  remember  me." 

And  now  look  again  at  this  man's  faith.  He  not  only 
believes,  contrary  to  the  expectation  of  every  other  living 
man,  that  this  dying  Jesus  will  yet  come  in  his  kingdom, 
but  that  when  he  comes,  he  will  be  able  to  do  somethins: 
for  wretches  like  himself  after  they  shall  have  expiated 
their  crimes  by  death  on  the  cross.  What  that  some- 
thing was  he  did  not  fully  or  clearly  understand,  but 
scarcely  had  the  words  escaped  his  lips  until  he  hears 
through  the  labored  breathing  of  Jesus  the  surprising 
words.  "To-day  thou  shalt  be  with  me  in  paradise."  And 
what  words  did  Jesus  ever  utter  so  surprising  as  these? 
How^  strange  that  the  first  man  of  all  whom  he  had 
known  on  earth  to  be  with  him  in  paradise,  should  be  a 
crucified  robber!  This  most  exceptional  instance  of  sal- 
vation from  sin  is  worthy  of  deeper  reflection  and  pro- 
founder  study  than  it  has  yet  received. 

One  more  remark:  If  those  are  right  who  teach,  by 
a  misinterpretation  of  a  passage  in  Peter's  first  Epistle, 
that  Jesus  spent  the  time  between  his  death  and  his 
resurrection  preaching  to  lost  souls  in  Hades,  then  it 
follows  that  he  promised  his  compau}-  to  the  wrong 
robber  when  he  died.  Instead  of  saying  to  the  penitent 
robber,  "To-day  thou  shalt  be  with  me  in  paradise,"  he 
should  have  said  to  the  impenitent  one,  "To-day  I  shall 
be  with  thee  among  the  spirits  in  prison." 


[Fel).  14.  1903.] 

A    LAWYER    IX    THE    AREXA. 

I  have  been  greatly  delighted  the  last  few  days  in 
reading  a  work  on  modern  criticism  by  an  eminent  Eng- 
lish lawyer.  Sir  Robert  Anderson.     It  was  loaned  to  me 


414  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

by  Professor  Loos,  who  had  read  it  with  great  interest. 
It  is  fresh  from  the  press  of  Hodder  &  Stoughton,  Lon- 
don, and  it  bears  the  title,  "The  Bible  and  Modern 
Criticism."  The  little  book,  "Daniel  in  the  Critics'  Den," 
reviewed  in  these  columns  last  summer  by  Professor 
Deweese,  is  an  earlier  publication  by  the  same  author. 
The  preface  was  written  by  Professor  Moule,  now  Lord 
P)ishop  of  Durham,  and  in  it  he  says  of  the  book: 

It  is  the  free  and  (to  use  the  word  in  its  best  sense)  popular 
presentation  of  the  results  of  an  independent  study  of  the  new 
criticism,  as  actually  put  before  us  in  representative  works,  done 
by  a  student  entirely  free  from  professional  bias,  and  trained  in 
a  severe  school  of  legal  and  judicial  investigation  to  sift  wit- 
nesses and  weigh  evidence.  It  is  an  example  of  exactly  the  sort 
of  work  which,  in  my  opinion,  the  church  needs  in  an  eminent 
degree,  and  which  is,  I  fear,  lamentably  rare  to-day — the  careful 
study  of  religious  problems  by  laymen  at  once  open-minded  and 
devout.  In  the  best  specimens  of  such  study  there  is  often,  to 
my  thinking,  a  quite  peculiar  value  ;  a  fresh  and  bracing  air  of 
thought  all  their  own  ;  a  faculty  for  throwing  some  light  upon 
subjects  tangled  by  the  overhandling  of  experts.  Experts,  as 
Sir  Robert  Anderson  often  pertinently  reminds  us,  are  by  no 
means,  as  such,  good  judges.  At  the  bar  we  sometimes  find  a 
man's  logic  swamped  by  his  learning;  and  so  it  is  in  theology. 

If  I  were  to  attempt  an  improvement  on  this  last 
remark,  I  would  say  that  we  sometimes,  and  often,  find 
men  with  vast  acquirements  in  knowledge,  but  almost 
void  of  logic.  They  are  men  of  industry,  and  of  tena- 
cious memory,  but  scarcely  capable  of  distinguishing  be- 
tween a  sound  argument  and  an  unsound  one.  Such 
men  are  easily  led  astray  by  their  own  theorizings  or  by 
the  cimning  of  other  men. 

The  author  sets  forth  correctly  the  well-known  effect 
on  the  public  mind  of  the  criticism  under  discussion,  by 
his  opening  paragraph,  which  reads  as  follows : 

In  these  days  of  unrest  many  Christians  are  distressed  by 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  415 

doubts  whether  the  Bible  may  l^e  received  with  the  settled  and 
simple  faith  accorded  to  it  in  the  past.  They  have  been  cor- 
rupted and  disturbed  by  the  Christianized  skepticism  which  pre- 
vails ;  and,  to  use  an  apt  illustration,  their  anchor  has  dragged, 
and  they  are  drifting.  It  may  be,  therefore,  that  one  who  has 
known  similar  experiences,  and  is  no  stranger  to  such  doubts, 
may  be  able  in  some  measure  to  help  others  who  are  thus 
troubled. 

Here  he  clearly  indicates  the  effect  upon  his  own  mind 
of  this  "Christianized  skepticism"  before  he  commenced 
the  serious  study  of  the  subject,  and  perhaps  during  the 
earlier  stages  of  that  study.  He  recurs  again  and  again 
to  his  experience  in  this  respect.  At  the  opening  of  an- 
other chapter  (p.  129)  he  says: 

I\Iore  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago,  when  I  first  came 
definitely  under  the  influence  of  the  higher  criticism,  doubts  be- 
gan to  undermine  my  faith  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  I  then  knew 
but  little  either  of  the  history  or  the  aims  of  the  movement,  and 
a  taste  for  critical  inquiries,  combined  with  impatience  of  mere 
"orthodoxy,"  created  in  my  mind  a  prejudice  in  its  favor.  At 
the  same  time,  I  had  a  sufficient  acquaintance  wuth  the  general 
scheme  of  revelation,  and  especially  with  the  typology  and 
prophecy  of  Scripture,  to  prevent  me  from  being  misled  by  the 
teaching  of  the  critics  about  the  Pentateuch,  or  by  their  theory 
that  the  priestly  code,  as  they  call  it,  was  later  than  the  prophets. 

Suppose,  now,  that  this  lay  lawyer,  like  the  great 
majority  of  lawyers  in  America,  had  not  been  thus 
acquainted  with  the  Scriptures,  how  could  he  have  pre- 
vented being  misled,  and  have  guarded  his  faith  from 
being  imdermined  ?  Unfortunately,  this  unguarded  state 
of  faith,  unguarded  by  Scripture  knowledge,  is  precisely 
the  state  of  faith  experienced  by  the  thousands  of  young 
men  who,  with  minds  alert  in  other  particulars,  are  an- 
nually brought  under  the  influence  of  "Christianized 
skepticism"  in  our  colleges  and  universities,  and  even  in 
many   pulpits,   magazines    and    daily   newspapers.      The 


4i6  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

result,  the  inevitable  result,  is  "these  clays  of  unrest;" 
and  the  men  who  are  causing  it  shall  give  account  there- 
for in  the  day  of  judgment. 

As  Bishop  Moule  intimates  in  his  preface,  there  is  a 
freshness  and  vigor  in  this  book  which  often  stirs  a 
man's  blood  and  opens  his  eyes.  Nothing  that  I  have 
read  since  Baxter's  review  of  Wellhausen  has  so  much 
of  this  quality. 


[Feb.  14,  1Q03.] 
TERTIUS. 

Thousands  and  thousands  of  men  eminent  in  their 
respective  generations  have  been  forgotten,  and  even 
their  names  have  perished.  Of  a  few  the  names  have 
been  recorded,  and  nothing  more.  Of  the  wise  men  who 
lived  in  the  generation  after  David,  only  Solomon  is  now 
known  to  the  world,  while  Ethan  the  Ezrahite,  and 
Heman  and  Calcol  and  Darda,  the  sons  of  ^lahol.  whose 
wisdom  was  such  that  Solomon  alone  excelled  them  (i 
Kings  4:31),  are  known  only  by  their  names,  and  by 
these  not  one  man  in  ten  thousand  knows  them  now. 
Who  among  their  contemporaries  could  have  dreamed 
that  they  would  be  thus   forgotten? 

And  here  is  Tertius,  who  was  the  real  writer  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans ;  how  many  people  recognize  his 
name  when  they  see  it  in  print?  How  many,  who  shall 
read  this  article,  will  escape  some  surprise,  on  seeing  the 
statement  that  he  wrote  this  well-known  Epistle?  How 
many  there  are  who  are  not  conscious-  of  ever  having 
heard  his  name !  Who  was  he  ?  His  name  Tertius 
(third)  makes  it  probable  that  he  was  so  named  because 
he  was  his  mother's  third  son.  Quartus  (fourth),  v/ho 
is  mentioned  in  the  next  verse  (Rom.  16:23),  may  have 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM      '  417 

been  so  called  because  he  was  the  next  youngei  brother 
of  Tertius.  If  his  parents  used  numerals  for  the  names 
of  their  children,  they  could  easily  find  names  for  all  of 
them  as  they  made  their  appearance.  It  would  be 
Primus,  Secundus,  Tertius,  Quartus,  Quintus,  Sextus, 
Septimus,  and  so  on  to  the  end. 

But  this  is  not  all  that  is  known  of  Tertius.  Often  a 
single  fact  in  a  man's  history  reveals,  indirectly,  a  great 
deal.  He  says,  in  a  parenthesis  (for  it  is  only  in  a 
parenthesis  that  we  learn  anything  about  him),  "I  Ter- 
tius, who  wrote  this  epistle,  salute  you."  He  was,  then, 
a  penman,  a  scribe.  In  his  day,  penmanship  was  an  art, 
as  it  is  at  the  present  day  in  eastern  lands — an  art  to 
which  young  men  were  trained  as  they  are  to  stenog- 
raphy and  typewriting  in  our  own  day.  The  most  skill- 
ful teachers  of  penmanship  in  our  day  are  not  more 
expert  than  were  the  professional  scribes  of  that  day. 
That  Paul  employed  Tertius  to  write,  wdiile  he  dictated 
the  words,  is  proof  that  Paul  intended  to  have  a  per- 
fect manuscript,  no  word  obscure,  no  letter  omitted,  no 
interlining.  The  manuscript  was  to  be  as  free  from 
imperfection  as  the  thoughts  were  from  error.  What- 
ever might  be  the  fate  of  that  manuscript  in  days  and 
years  and  centuries  to  come,  it  was  to  be  given  to  the 
world  inerrant.  H  errors  should  afterward  creep  into 
the  text,  it  would  be  the  fauh  of  man,  and  this  would 
make  it  the  duty  of  man  to  detect  and  correct  them. 
Could  not  Paul  have  thus  written  with  his  own  pen? 
Perhaps  not.  He  was  brought  up  to  the  trade  of  a  tent- 
maker,  and  not  to  that  of  a  scribe. 

But  we  know^  one  thing  more  about  Tertius.  He  was 
a  Christian.  In  writing  at  Paul's  dictation  he  took  the 
liberty,  or  was  granted  the  liberty,  to  send  his  own  salu- 
tation to  the  elect  of  God  who  dwelt  in  Rome.     He  prob- 


4i8  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

ably  knew  none  of  them  by  person,  but  he  knew  that 
when  they  shoukl  learn  how  Paul  had  honored  him  as 
his  penman,  they  would  take  new  interest  in  the  penman- 
ship of  the  Epistle,  and  accept  thankfully  his  greeting. 
How  much  of  Christian  fellowship  is  here  implied! 
When  I  get  to  heaven  I  shall  be  glad  to  see  Tertius. 


[Feb.  14.  1903.] 
IS    IT    A    QUOTATION? 

Again  and  again  is  the  assertion  made  that  the  ac- 
count of  Joshua's  great  miracle  is  a  quotation  from  the 
Book  of  Jashar,  for  which  the  Book  of  Joshua  is  not 
accountable ;  and  those  who  so  assert  are  called  upon 
again  and  again  for  proof,  and  called  upon  in  vain.  For 
the  hundredth  time,  perhaps,  I  saw  it  not  long  ago  in  a 
newspaper  report  of  a  sermon  on  the  Book  of  Joshua, 
and  here  is  the  form  which  it  took : 

The  question  is  not.  Could  God  cause  the  sun  and  moon  to 
stand  still,  but  did  God  do  this  at  the  request  of  Joshua?  The 
Scriptures  do  not  say  so.  The  passage  is  simply  a  poetic  way 
of  saying  the  Israelites  won  their  victory  before  the  setting  of 
the  sun;  that  before  the  day  closed,  the  five  kings,  with  their 
armies,  were  overthrown.  This  is  not  a  prayer.  It  is  not  a 
direct  address  to  Jehovah.  It  is  expressly  declared  to  be  a 
quotation  from  the  Book  of  Jasher. 

It  is  difficult  to  see  how  a  man  with  the  Book  of 
Joshua  open  before  him  could  make  these  statements. 
The  text  says : 

Then  spake  Joshua  unto  Jehovah  in  the  day  when  Jehovah 
delivered  up  the  Amorites  before  the  children  of  Israel ;  and  he 
said  in  the  sight  of  Israel, 

Sun,  stand  thou  still  upon  Gibeon  ; 

And  thou,  Moon,  in  the  valley  of  Aijalon. 

And  the  sun  stood  still,  and  the  moon  stayed, 

Until  the  nation  had  avenged  themselves  of  their  enemies. 

Is  not  this  written  in  the  book  of  Jashar? 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  419 

This  is  all  that  is  said  to  have  been  written  in  the 
Book  of  Jasher;  and  if  this  were  all  that  is  said  of  the 
matter,  the  account  might  be  fairly  said  to  be  a  quotation 
from  Jasher;  but  would  this  free  the  author  of  the  Book 
of  Joshua  from  responsibility?  If  the  story  was  untrue, 
would  he  not  be  propagating  a  falsehood  by  quoting  it 
with  tacit  endorsement? 

But  the  quotation  is  not  made  with  tacit  endorsement. 
The  author  of  Joshua  immediately  adds,  on  his  own  re- 
sponsibility, these  emphatic  words:  "And  the  sun  stayed 
in  the  midst  of  heaven,  and  hasted  not  to  go  down  about 
the  space  of  a  whole  day.  And  there  was  no  day  like 
that  before  it  or  after  it,  that  Jehovah  hearkened  to  the 
voice  of  a  man :  for  Jehovah  fought  for  Israel." 

I  would  request  the  next  gentleman  who  tries  to 
explain  away  this  great  miracle,  to  tell  us  wdiy,  after 
quoting  from  another  author  a  poetic  account  of  a  great 
miracle,  the  author  of  Joshua  deliberately  attested  in  the 
plainest  and  most  unpoetic  words  the  truth  of  the  poetic 
assertions.  Why,  unless  he  either  believed  the  story  to 
be  true,  or  wanted  to  deceive  his  readers.  And  I  would 
also  suggest  that  if  a  man  can  not  believe  this  story,  it 
would  be  more  candid  to  bluntly  say  so,  than  to  try  to 
make  out  that  the  author  of  Joshua  does  not  tell  it. 
Neither  Joshua  nor  his  biographer  stands  in  need  of  any 
such  defense. 


[Feb.  21.  1903.] 

NA^IE    THE    PROPHETS. 

The   Outlook,   in   its  notice  of  my  work  on   Deuter- 
onomy, said : 

In  this  volume  Professor  ^NIcGarvey  utters  the  protest  of  the 
conservatives  in  the  church  of  the  Disciples  against  the  generally 


420  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

accepted  belief  of  scholars  that  Deuteronomy  was  not  the  work 
of  Moses  himself,  but  of  the  Mosaic  school,  one  may  say  of 
prophets  in  the  seventh  century  B.  C. 

I  wish  that  some  one  who  knows  that  writer  would 
ask  him  the  names  of  some  of  that  Mosaic  school  of 
prophets  in  the  seventh  century  B.  C.  Isaiah  died  about 
the  beginning  of  that  century,  and  Jeremiah  prophesied 
in  the  last  twenty  years  of  it.  It  is  admitted  that  neither 
of  these  took  part  in  the  composition  of  Deuteronomy. 
What  other  prophet  lived  between  these  two?  Will  The 
Outlook  name  him  with  chapter  and  verse,  or  give  us 
the  verse  in  which,  without  the  names,  it  is  said  that 
there  was  a  single  one,  much  less  a  school,  of  them? 
True,  there  was  no  lack  of  prophets  such  as  they  were; 
for  Jeremiah  says :  "The  prophets  prophesy  lies  in  my 
name ;  I  sent  them  not,  neither  have  I  commanded  them ; 
they  prophesy  unto  you  a  lying  vision,  and  divination, 
and  a  thing  of  nought,  and  the  deceit  of  their  own  heart" 
(14:  14).  And  again:  "A  wonderful  and  horrible  thing 
has  come  to  pass  in  the  land;  the  prophets  prophesy 
falsely,  and  the  priests  rule  by  their  means ;  and  my 
people  love  to  have  it  so :  and  what  will  ye  do  in  the 
end  thereof?"  (5:31).  How  fond  these  crooked  critics 
are  of  finding  prophets  and  authors  of  books  in  periods 
perfectly  barren  of  such  persons.  Unknown  authors  are 
their  delight.  They  are  thoroughgoing  agnostics  in  re- 
gard to  the  authorship  of  Biblical  books.  Which  one  of 
the  known  authors  have  they  not  persecuted? 


[Feb.  21,  1903.] 

AS    A    LAWYER    SEES    IT. 

I  am  sure  that  no  reader  has  forgotten  what  I  wrote 
last   week    respecting    Sir    Robert    Anderson's   book   on 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  4-'i 

modern  criticism,  or  the  extracts  which  I  made  from  it. 
The  critics  may  imagine  that  while  preachers  who  are 
sound  in  faith  are  withstanding  their  assaults  on  the 
Bible,  the  rank  and  file  of  the  people,  and  men  of  the 
various  professions  who  are  not  well  posted  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, are  ])eing  carried  with  them.  They  have  yet  to 
learn  that  there  are  multitudes  of  lawyers,  doctors  and 
other  thoughtful  men  who  are  capable  of  detecting 
sophistry,  and  who  are  seeing  plainly  through  their  thin 
disguises.  We  are  not  to  presume  that  Sir  Robert  An- 
derson is  the  only  eminent  lawyer  of  whom  this  is  true ; 
and  even  if  he  were,  his  example  would  inevitably  arouse 
the  attention  of  others.  I  want  our  readers  to  see  sev- 
eral more  specimens  of  this  lawyer's  brief  in  the  case. 

The  two  most  pretentious  works  which  have  appeared 
in  the  English  language  within  the  last  ten  years,  in 
support  of  "modern  scientific  criticism,"  are  Hastings' 
"Bible  Dictionary"  and  Cheyne's  "Encyclopaedia  Biblica." 
Mr.  Anderson  has  looked  into  both  of  them,  and  he 
happily  points  out  the  difference  between  them  in  the 
following  paragraph : 

The  difiference  between  the  work  in  question  [that  of  Cheyne] 
and  the  more  conservative  and  cautious  "Dictionary  of  the  Bible." 
edited  by  Dr.  James  Hastings,  to  which  Professor  Driver,  of 
Oxford,  has  lent  his  name,  is  that  the  one  represents  the  Bible  as 
error  and  romance  mingled  with  truth,  and  the  other  as  truth 
mingled  with  romance  and  error.  For  certain  purposes  the  dis- 
tinction is  a  real  one,  but  here  it  is  immaterial.  For  the  question 
I  have  raised  is.  whether  the  old-fashioned  l)elief  in  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures  can  be  maintained;  and  the  main  purpose 
of  every  work  emanating  from  these  writers  is.  as  they  would 
say,  to  remove  the  difficulties  and  dangers  which  the  historic  view 
of  inspiration  is  supposed  to  create.  The  one  set  of  writers  hand 
me  a  purse  of  coins,  with  an  assurance  that  the  most  of  them 
are  genuine.  The  other  set  of  writers  hand  me  a  purse  of  coins 
with  the  warning  that  most  of  them  are  counterfeit.     But,  as  I 


422  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

am  unable  to  distinguish  between  the  base  coins  and  the  gold, 
honesty  forbids  my  trading  with  any  of  them,  and  therefore  all 
my  seeming  wealth  is  practically  useless.  In  either  case,  the 
Bible  is  like  a  lottery  bag,  from  which  the  blanks  and  prizes 
must  be  drawn  at  random.  If  the  one  section  of  the  critics  may 
be  trusted,  the  prizes  abound ;  if  the  other  section  be  right,  the 
blanks  predominate.  But  in  either  case.  I  repeat,  faith  is  impos- 
sible, and  therefore  Christianity  is  destroyed    (14,  15). 

On  another  page  our  author  gives  a  striking  illus- 
tration of  the  irreverent  manner  in  which  this  criticism 
picks  to  pieces  and  discredits  the  Bible : 

I  appeal  to  all  intelligent  and  fair-minded  thinkers.  The  only 
kind  of  person  I  wish  to  ignore  is  the  fool.  We  all  know  the 
sort  of  morbidly  active-brained  child  who  will  pull  a  valuable 
watch  to  pieces,  and  then  tell  us  with  a  smile  that  "there  was 
nothing  in  it  but  wheels  and  things."  He  has  his  counterpart  in 
the  foreign  infidel  type  of  scholar  who,  albeit  as  ignorant  of  man 
and  his  needs  as  a  monk,  and  as  ignorant  of  God  and  his  ways 
as  a  monkey,  sets  himself  with  a  light  heart  to  tear  the  Bible 
to  pieces  (19). 

I  have  more  than  once  asserted  in  these  colimms  that 
all  of  the  attacks  now  made  by  so-called  evangelical 
critics  upon  the  historical  veracity  of  the  Scriptures  were 
made  by  avowed  infidels  long  ages  ago,  and  that  they 
have  been  refuted  as  often  as  made.  Mr.  Anderson 
expresses  himself  on  this  point  in  the  following  forcible 
words : 

We  have  come  within  sight  of  an  apostasy  unparalleled  in 
the  history  of  Christendom.  Every  attack  which  open  infidelity 
has  launched  against  the  Bible  is  now  being  repeated  by  men 
"who  profess  and  call  themselves  Christians,"  and  who  claim  to 
be  the  apostles  of  a  new  movement  in  defense  of  the  citadel  of 
Christian  truth.  And  just  as  vice  became  fashionable  in  the  days 
of  Charles  II.,  so.  as  Professor  Cheyne  naively  owns,  this  system 
of  attacking  truth  in  the  interests  of  truth  has  become  "fashion- 
able" in  Britain  to-day.  The  appearance  of  his  "Encyclopaedia" 
has  checked  the  movement  for  the  moment ;  but  the  scare  thus 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  423 

caused  will  soon  subside.  It  has  fluttered  the  lesser  lights  of  the 
higher  criticism,  who  have  been  serving  as  acolytes  in  the  wor- 
ship of  this  new  goddess  of  reason.  For  they  are  not  clear- 
headed enough  to  see  that  Professor  Cheyne  has  only  pressed 
their  own  principle  to  legitimate  conclusions    (37). 

The  publication  of  the  "Polychrome  Bible,"  so  far 
as  it  was  published,  was  one  of  the  hardest  blows  that 
crooked  criticism  has  received,  and  it  is  a  blow  delivered 
by  its  own  hand,  as  if  suicide  was  intended.  We  have 
heard  nothing  from  it  of  late.  Like  an  imtimeh  birth,  it 
seems  to  have  died  in  being  delivered.  ^Ir.  Anderson 
has  a  due  appreciation  of  the  abortion,  and  he  incident- 
ally alludes  to  it  while  pressing  upon  our  attention  the 
uncertainty  as  to  whether  the  skeptical  criticism  of  to- 
morrow will  not  completely  reverse  that  of  to-day.  He 
says : 

What  guarantee  have  we,  then,  that  the  vagaries  of  present- 
day  criticism  about  the  books  of  ]\Ioses,  the  prophets  and  the 
Psalms,  will  not  be  dismissed  as  lightly  by  the  higher  critics  of 
the  future?  I  am  not  referring  here  to  the  puerilities  of  the 
"Polychrome  Bible" — such  puerilities  offend  the  common  sense 
of  all  intelligent  people  (49). 

\Mien  a  man  occupies  a  ridiculous  position,  nothing 
makes  him  wince  quicker  than  a  little  deserved  ridicule. 
If  he  is  above  ridicule,  as  every  man  is  who  stands  with 
both  feet  on  the  truth,  he  cares  nothing  for  an  attempt 
to  heap  it  upon  him.  I  am  comforted  to  find  this  British 
lawyer  looking  upon  this  feature  of  the  critical  contro- 
versy as  I  do.     On  this  point  he  says : 

My  answer,  then,  is  clear  and  unequivocal.  As  for  the  man- 
ner of  it,  I  am  well  aware  of  its  faults  and  imperfections.  But 
one  characteristic  of  it,  for  which  I  expect  to  be  taken  severely 
to  task,  I  refuse  to  regard  as  a  fault  at  all.  At  the  outset  I 
waived  appeal  to  authority,  and  therefore  I  have  deliberately 
abstained  from  paying  the  critical  scholars  the  homage  to  which 
they  are  accustomed.    To  adopt  the  words  of  Dr.  Pusey,  "1  have 


424  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

turned  against  skeptics  their  own  weapons,  and  used  ridicule 
against  the  would-be  arguments  of  a  false  criticism  which 
thought  itself  free  because  it  made  itself  free  with  God's  word" 
(250). 

I  remember  that  once  on  a  time  certain  brethren  who 
had  been  supporting  the  American  Christian  Missionary 
Society,  having  become  dissatisfied  with  the  management, 
called  a  meeting  for  the  purpose  of  organizing  another 
society.  Isaac  Errett  remonstrated  with  them  in  the 
columns  of  the  Christian  Standard.  The  leader  of  the 
movement  indignantly  retorted  that  they  were  free  men 
and  had  a  right.to  do  as  they  pleased.  "Of  course  you  are 
free  men,"  responded  the  editor,  "and  you  can  stand  on 
your  heads  if  you  choose ;  but  if  you  do,  I  am  also  a  free 
man,  and  I  have  the  right  to  criticize  your  posture." 


[Alarch  14,  1903.] 

"A    NEW    APOLOGETIC." 

The  Biblical  World  for  February  contains  a  long 
article  by  Professor  Terry,  of  the  Garrett  Biblical  Insti- 
tute, Evanston,  111.,  under  the  heading,  ''The  Need  of  a 
New  Apologetic,  from  the  Point  of  View  of  Biblical 
Criticism."  He  accepts  the  so-called  results  of  destruc- 
tive criticism,  and  yet  he  wishes  to  defend  the  Bible.  It 
is  not  surprising,  then,  that  he  should  call  for  a  new  way 
of  defending  it.  In  Webster's  Dictionary,  apologetics 
(the  right  form  of  the  word)  is  defined,  "The  branch  of 
theology  which  defends  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  sets 
forth  the  evidence  of  their  divine  authority."  After 
proving,  as  this  criticism  does  if  its  conclusions  are  true, 
that  much  the  greater  part  of  the  Scriptures  has  no 
divine  authority,  that  it  is  purely  human  and  replete  with 
errors  of  fact  and  teaching,  it  is  surprising  to  hear  a 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  4^5 

man  who  accepts  these  conchisions,  call  for  any  defense 
of  the  Scriptures  at  all:  but,  if  he  must  have  one,  it  is 
not  surprising  that  he  calls  for  a  new  one.  If  he  finds 
one,  it  will  not  only  be  a  new  one,  but  it  will  be  such  as 
was  never  heard  of  or  thought  of  before.  He  is  in  the 
predicament  of  an  attorney  wdio,  after  impeaching  a  wit- 
ness by  proving  that  he  is  a  habitual  liar,  should  then 
turn  round,  and  bring  forward  evidence  that  he  is  a  man 
of  veracity. 

That  this  Professor  does  accept  the  conclusions  of 
destructive  critics,  is  abundantly  set  forth  in  his  article. 
For  instance,  to  show  that  the  speeches  recorded  in  the 
Bible  are  not  to  be  accepted  as  having  been  made  by  the 
speakers  to  whom  they  are  ascribed,  he  quotes  from 
Thucydides  the  frank  statement  that  in  his  history  he 
put  into  the  mouth  of  each  speaker  the  sentiments  proper 
to  the  occasion,  and  argues  from  this  honest  confession 
of  a  heathen  author  that  the  Biblical  writers  did  the 
same  thing.  After  the  quotation  from  Thucydides,  he 
says:  "Admonished  by  such  a  statement  from  one  of  the 
most  trustworthy  historians  of  400  B.  C,  the  Biblical 
apologist  of  to-day  ought  not  to  commit  himself  to  the 
hazardous  and  needless  task  of  affirming  the  genuineness 
of  all  the  speeches  and  songs  which  are  attributed  to  the 
Old  Testament  heroes  who  lived,  many  of  them,  long 
before  the  time  of  Thucydides."  Here  it  is  argued  that 
because  a  heathen  historian  composed  speeches,  and  put 
them  into  the  mouths  of  his  heroes,  but  forew^arned  his 
readers  that  he  did  so,  therefore  Biblical  historians,  who 
gave  no  such  warning,  must  have  done  the  same  thing. 
They  did  the  same,  but  were  not  honest  enough  to 
acknowledge  it.  Conspicuous  examples  of  this  are  the 
speeches  and  songs  ascribed  to  Moses  in  the  Pentateuch, 
Solomon's  dedication  prayer,  many  of  the  Psalms,  and 


426  SHORT    ESSAYS   IN 

multitudes  of  other  speeches  and  songs.  The  argument 
is  not  Hmited  to  the  Old  Testament  examples ;  for  these 
critics  find  no  better  evidence  of  the  genuineness  of  New 
Testament  songs  and  speeches  than  of  those  recorded  in 
the  Old  Testament.  They  thus  deal  with  the  songs  of 
Mary,  Elizabeth  and  Zacharias,  and  with  the  speeches 
of  Jesus  in  the  Gospels,  and  of  Peter,  Stephen  and  Paul 
in  Acts.  When  Professor  Terry  reached  the  conclusion 
that  all  of  these  were  composed  by  others,  and  put  into 
the  mouths  of  the  hypothetical  speakers  and  singers, 
there  is  no  wonder  that  he  began  to  rub  his  eyes,  and 
look  around  for  ''a  new  apologetic." 

In  his  bewilderment  he  sees  glimpses  of  another  line 
of  argument  to  be  supplied  by  his  new  apologetic.  He 
thinks  that  the  old  apologists,  including  the  authors  of 
our  Gospels,  made  an  improper  use  of  the  argument 
from  fulfilled  prophecy.  In  this  connection  he  sets  forth 
the  old  infidel  argument  about  Isaiah's  'Virgin  proph- 
ecy," which  I  copied  from  President  Harper  recently 
and  refuted,  and  then,  to  show  how  poor  an  apologist 
Matthew  was,  he  says:  "It  is  also  said  in  Matt.  2:  15 
that  Hos.  11:  I  was  fulfilled  in  the  return  of  the  child 
Jesus  from  Egypt  after  the  death  of  Herod.  In  Hosea 
it  is  written:  'When  Israel  was  a  child  then  I  loved  him,- 
and  called  my  son  out  of  Egypt.'  The  language  is  obvi- 
ously not  a  prediction  of  a  future  event,  but  a  reference 
to  the  exodus  in  the  days  of  Moses."  And  I  wonder  if 
Matthew  did  not  have  sense  enough  to  see  this  a«^  plainly 
as  Professor  Terry  does?  What  man  with  three  grains 
of  sense,  on  reading  the  words,  "When  Israel  was  a  child 
I  loved  him,  and  called  my  son  out  of  Egypt,"  could  fail 
to  see  that  they  contain,  not  a  prediction,  but  a  statement 
of  a  past  historical  event?  Was  Matthew,  then,  such  a 
fool  as  to  think  that  here  was  a  prediction,  or  are  those 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  427 

who  ascribe  such  folly  to  him  guilty  of  it  themselves? 
Why  not  give  Matthew  some  credit  for  common  sense, 
and  suppose  that  when  he  found  the  words  descriptive 
of  an  ancient  event  exactly  descriptive  of  one  more 
recent,  he  meant  to  assert  that  these  words  were  again 
fulfilled?  Or  why  not  permit  him  to  think  that  the  call- 
ing of  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  under  the  remarkable  title 
**my  son,"  was  t}'pical  of  the  greater  event  of  calling  the 
actual  Son  of  God  out  of  that  same  country?  I  am  not 
able  to  say  why  this  is,  except  that  it  is  the  habit  of  these 
critics  to  deny  to  inspired  writers  the  common  sense  of 
which  they  themselves  have  so  little. 

The  extent  to  which  this  seeker  for  a  new  apologetic 
is  sunk  in  the  slough  of  destructive  criticism  is  seen  in 
the  estimate  which  he  places  on  Hastings'  "Dictionary  of 
the  Bible"  and  Cheyne's  "Encyclopaedia  Biblica."  He 
claims  that  the  Biblical  criticism  represented  in  these 
works  "demands  recognition  in  the  apologetic  of  the 
present  time."  In  this  he  is  undoubtedly  correct  in  word, 
though  not  in  meaning.  That  criticism  certainly  does 
demand  recognition,  and  I  have  not  a  doubt  that  in  due 
time  it  will  receive  full  recognition — not  by  accepting  it 
as  correct,  and  from  that  point  of  view  seeking  to  defend 
an  indefensible  Bible,  but  by  thoroughly  exposing  its 
sophistry,  and  furnishing  a  dictionary  that  will  prove 
the  Bible  to  be  at  all  points  what  it  claims  to  be. 

There  are  some  isolated  statements  in  this  essay 
which  are  characteristic  of  the  class  of  writers  to  which 
Professor  Terry  belongs,  and  which  they  never  weary 
in  vociferating.  He  says,  for  instance,  "We  have  no 
fear  that  faithful  criticism  of  the  most  searching  kind 
can  ever  destroy  God's  truth."  And  who  has?  Who  is 
silly  enough  to  fear  that  criticism,  either  faithful  or 
unfaithful,  can  destrov  God's  truth?     What  it  can  de- 


428  SHORT    ESSAYS   IN 

stroy  is  not  God's  truth,  but  belief  in  God's  truth  on  the 
part  of  men  who  are  deceived  by  it. 

''Why  should  it  be  supposed  that  the  sacred  writers 
must  needs  be  supernaturally  secured  against  all  histori- 
cal inaccuracy  more  than  against  inaccuracies  of  gram- 
mar and  rhetoric?"  Any  child  can  answer.  Because 
inaccuracies  of  grammar  and  rhetoric  do  not  involve 
untruthfulness,  but  historical  inaccuracy  does.  A  wit- 
ness in  court  who  violates  every  rule  of  grammar  is  not 
thereby  discredited  with  the  jury,  but  if  he  is  inaccurate 
in  a  single  matter  of  fact,  his  whole  testimony  is  im- 
paired, if  not  impeached. 

''The  human  element  in  the  Scriptures  is  seen  to  be 
as  conspicuous  as  in  other  writings,  and  it  is  worse  than 
folly  to  ignore  or  try  to  cover  up  the  facts."  By  the 
human  element  is  here  meant  human  errors  ;  for  about 
the  human  element  in  other  particulars  there  is  no  dis- 
pute. If,  then,  human  errors  are  as  conspicuous  in  the 
Scriptures  as  in  other  writings,  why  want  a  new  apolo- 
getic for  the  Scriptures  any  more  than  for  Mark  Twain's 
"Innocents  Abroad"  ? 

"It  is  of  no  religious  importance  to  know  the  exact 
facts  about  the  Galileans  whose  blood  Pilate  is  said  to 
have  mingled  with  their  sacrifices ;  but  it  is  of  great 
importance  to  be  admonished  that  they  were  not  sinners 
above  all  the  Galileans,  and  'except  ye  repent,  ye  shall 
all  in  like  manner  perish'."  In  other  words,  it  is  of  no 
religious  importance  to  know  whether  Christ,  in  warn- 
ing his  disciples  from  a  recent  disaster  to  some  of  their 
countrym.en,  told  the  truth  about  that  disaster  or  not. 
And  so  about  the  eighteen  on  whom  the  tower  fell.  In 
this  instance  Professor  Terry  anticipates  our  objection 
by  supposing  that  a  bystander  had  said  to  Jesus,  "Mas- 
ter, that  was  a  false  report ;  the  tower  fell,  but  nobody 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  4J9 

was  harmed."  He  claims  that  Jesus  would  have  an- 
swered, "Except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  perish  in  a  man- 
ner as  dreadful  as  the  report  declared."  But  the  by- 
stander would  have  responded,  "Ah!  Master,  that  is  too 
late ;  you  have  already  committed  yourself  to  the  state- 
ment that  eighteen  perished,  and  if  you  take  it  back,  you 
show  yourself  as  unreliable  about  facts  as  the  rest  of 
us." 

What  we  really  need  is  not  a  new  apologetic  based 
on  the  admissions  which  Professor  Terry  makes,  but  a 
new  edition  of  Smith's  "Bible  Dictionary"  which  will 
bring  all  of  its  articles  down  to  date,  and  shall  especially 
expose  the  pretension  of  self-styled  ''modern  scientific 
criticism."  Sooner  or  later  we  shall  have  it,  or  some- 
thing equally  effective. 


[]\Iarch  14,  1903.] 

MARY    ^lAGDALEXE. 

There  is  no  woman  whose  name  appears  in  history 
who  has  been  so  cruelly  dealt  with  as  Mary  Magdalene, 
who,  as  every  reader  of  the  Xew  Testament  knows,  was 
one  of  the  closest  and  most  devoted  friends  of  Jesus. 
She  has  been  represented  as  a  crazy  woman.  Celsus,  the 
first  infidel  writer  of  the  second  century,  declared  that 
the  story  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  originated  with  a 
frantic  woman,  and  Renan,  in  the  nineteenth  century, 
has  reiterated  the  charge,  thus  hurling  calumny  upon  the 
'lame  of  Alary,  while  seeking  to  overthrow  belief  in  the 
resurrection.  The  only  ground  for  this  charge  is  the 
fact  that  out  of  Mary  Jesus  had  cast  seven  demons :  but 
this  fact  does  not  prove  that  she  had  ever  been  insane. 
Demon-possession  did  not  always  dethrone  reason.  In- 
deed, there  is  only  one  example  in  the  New  Testament  of 


430  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

a  man  being  rendered  a  maniac  by  this  terrible  affliction. 
He  was  the  man  in  the  country  of  the  Gadarenes,  who 
was  possessed  by  a  legion.  Neither  does  demon-posses- 
sion imply  a  bad  character,  or  even  a  wicked  spirit,  on 
the  part  of  the  person  possessed.  The  boy  brought  to 
Jesus,  who  was  subject  to  epilepsy  under  the  power  of 
the  demon,  was  not  a  bad  boy ;  and  the  little  girl,  the 
daughter  of  the  woman  of  Sarepta,  who  cried  after 
Jesus,  and  out  of  whom  an  evil  spirit  was  cast,  was  cer- 
tainly not  a  wicked  person.  Moreover,  in  not  a  single 
instance  was  a  person  possessed  by  a  demon  ever  cen- 
sured as  though  the  affliction  was  the  result  of  evil- 
doing.  Furthermore,  even  if  Mary  had  been  insane,  like 
the  demoniac  of  Gadara,  during  the  period  of  her  pos- 
session, she  was  certainly  restored  to  her  right  mind 
when  Jesus  cast  the  demons  out,  and  from  all  appear- 
ances-there was  not  a  more  rational  person  among  all 
the  attendants  of  Jesus  from  that  time  onward  than 
Mary  Magdalene.  It  is  a  foul  and  base  slander,  then,  to 
represent  her  as  being  a  frantic  woman  when  she  saw 
Jesus  at  the 'tomb;  and  the  only  conceivable  motive  for 
making  the  charge  is  to  discredit  the  fact  to  which  she 
testified. 

Another  aspersion  of  the  name  of  Mary,  much  more 
widespread  and  much  fouler  in  its  character,  is  the  one 
universal  among  Roman  Catholics  and  quite  common 
among  Protestants,  that  she  had  been  a  strumpet  before 
she  became  a  personal  attendant  of  Jesus.  This  charge 
is  even  more  groundless  than  the  former.  It  is  based  on 
the  fact  that  Mary's  name  is  introduced  among  the 
attendants  of  Jesus,  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  Luke, 
directly  after  the  account,  in  the  seventh  chapter,  of  the 
woman  who  was  a  sinner,  and  who  washed  the  feet  of 
Jesus  with  her  tears,  and  wiped  them  with  her  hair.     It 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  431 

is  first  assumed,  because  this  woman  is  called  a  sinner, 
that  she  was  a  strumpet,  whereas  everybody  knows  that 
in  every  community  there  can  be  found  women,  justly 
called  sinners,  who  can  not  be  charged  w^ith  unchastity. 
Having-  thus  assumed  that  the  woman  in  question  was  a 
strumpet,  it  is  next  assumed,  without  a  shadow  of 
t^round  for  it,  that  ]\Iarv  and  this  woman  were  the  same. 
We  have  as  much  right  to  assume  that  Joanna  or 
Susanna,  whose  names  are  introduced  in  the  same  para- 
graph with  :\Iary's,  was  that  sinful  woman.  Baseless  as 
this  charge  undoubtedly  is.  it  has  gone  into  history  and 
poetry  and  religious  literature  of  all  kinds,  and  the  name 
Magdalen,  which  :\Iagdalene  bears  in  the  Latin  Bible, 
has  become  the  distinguishing  title  of  houses  for  the 
reformation  of  harlots.  They  are  called  :\Iagdalen  insti- 
tutions. 

It  is  high  time  that  the  name  of  this  pure  and  benevo- 
lent woman,  who  was  so  highly  honored  by  Jesus,  were 
relieved  from  these  foul  aspirations.  She  was  evi- 
dently an  associate,  not  only  of  the  Lord,  but  of  such 
women  as  Joanna,  the  wife  of  Chuza,  Herod's  steward, 
and  she  was  intimate  with  the  mother  of  Zebedee's  chil- 
dren, and  also  with  the  mother  of  Jesus.  She  was  also 
a  woman  of  property,  for  she  was  one  of  those  repre- 
sented by  Luke  in  the  chapter  already  referred  to,  who 
followed  Jesus  and  "ministered  to  him  of  their  sub- 
stance"— an  expression  which  means  that  out  of  their 
own  possessions  they  supplied  his  wants.  She  was  a 
woman,  as  all  passages  in  which  her  name  appears  attest, 
not  only  of  excellent  character,  but  of  intellectual  force 
and  personal  influence.  Her  name,  instead  of  being  dis- 
honored as  it  has  been,  should  be  enthroned  in  the  hearts 
of  all  lovers  of  Jesus,  and  inscribed  very  high  among 
those  of  w^hom   the  world  has  not  been   worthy.      ]My 


432  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

blood  boils  to  think  of  all  the  injury  that  has  been  done 
her,  and  I  feel  that  it  is  a  high  privilege  to  lift  up  my 
voice  in  her  vindication.  So  I  have  done,  and  so  I  will 
do  while  life  shall  last. 


1  March  21,  1903.] 

"THE    LEGENDS    OF    GENESIS." 

This  is  the  title  of  a  book  which  I  was  led  to  procure 
by  seeing  in  the  Biblical  JVorld  for  February  last  a 
highly  commendatory  notice  of  it.  I  wish  our  readers 
to  see  some  of  the  things  said  in  this  notice,  and  then  to 
see  some  of  the  things  found  in  the  book,  that  they  may 
thus  judge  what  kind  of  literature  from  Germany  the 
Biblical  World  is  helping  to  impose  on  American  readers. 

The  book  is  from  the  pen  of  Hermann  Gunkel,  Pro- 
fessor of  Old  Testament  Theology  in  the  University  of 
Berlin,  and  it  is  a  reprint  of  the  "Introduction  to  a  Com- 
mentary on  Genesis"  by  the  same  author.  Of  this  com- 
mentary the  reviewer,  who  is  Prof.  Nathaniel  Schmidt, 
of  Cornell  University,  says:  "There  is  no  commentary 
on  Genesis  superior  to  Gunkel's.  ...  It  was  a  good  idea 
to  present  to  English  readers  this  introduction ;  and  the 
title  given  to  it  is  quite  appropriate.  .  .  .  Never  has  the 
modern  conception  of  Genesis  been  presented  with  more 
lucidity  and  attractiveness.  Never  has  the  critical  work 
been  done  so  searchingly  and  yet  so  reverently.  If  the 
book  had  been  written  originally  for  the  general  public, 
it  could  not  have  been  more  admirably  suited  to  the 
needs  of  the  intelligent  layman.  It  is  popular  in  the  best 
sense,  and  should  be  widely  read." 

Now  let  us  look  at  some  of  the  contents  of  this  lucid, 
attractive  and  reverent  work;  and,  first,  a  specimen  of 
the  author's  ignorance  of  the  book  on  which  he  com- 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  433 

ments.  He  says:  "Many  things  are  reported  in  Genesis 
which  are  directly  against  our  better  knowledge:  we 
know  that  there  are  too  many  species  of  animals  for  all 
to  have  been  assembled  in  any  ark."  We  know  no  such 
thing.  "That  Ararat  is  not  the  highest  mountain  on 
earth."  Genesis  says  not  a  word  about  the  height  of 
Ararat.  "That  the  'firmament  of  heaven'  of  which  Gen, 
I  :  6  ff.  speaks,  is  not  a  reality,  but  an  optical  illusion." 
We  know  that  it  is  a  reality  ;  for  it  is  the  atmosphere,  as 
Genesis  clearly  indicates.  "That  the  stars  can  not  have 
come  into  existence  after  plants,  as  Gen.  i  :  10-14  re- 
ports." It  does  not  so  report.  It  says  that  God  created 
"the  heavens"  in  the  beginning,  and  this  expression  in- 
cludes the  stars.  He  only  made  them  light-bearers  to 
the  surface  of  the  earth  after  the  creation  of  plants. 
'That  the  rivers  of  the  earth  do  not  chiefly  flow  from 
four  principal  streams,  as  Genesis  2  thinks."  Genesis  2 
thinks  no  such  thing.  It  says  nothing  like  it.  "That  the 
Dead  Sea  had  been  in  existence  long  before  human 
beings  came  to  live  in  Palestine,  instead  of  originating 
in  historic  times."  And  Genesis  says  not  a  word  to  the 
contrary.  It  has  not  a  hint  as  to  when  the  Dead  Sea 
came  into  existence.  All  these  blunders  are  printed  in 
one  single  paragraph  on  page  7  of  this  most  accurate 
and  scholarly  book. 

On  a  later  page  (43)  is  found  another  blunder  which 
a  ten-year-old  Sunday-school  pupil  ought  to  be  ashamed 
of.  It  is  his  report  of  procuring  Rebekah  as  a  wife  for 
Isaac.  He  says:  ''Abraham  wishes  to  sue  for  a  wife  for 
his  son  ;  being  too  old  himself,  he  sends  out  his  oldest 
servant — thus  the  story  opens.  Then  we  are  told  how 
the  old  servant  finds  the  right  maiden  and  brings  her 
home.  ^Meantime,  the  aged  master  has  died.  The  young 
master  receives  the  bride,  and  he  was  comforted  for  the 


434  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

death  of  his  father."  This  is  about  as  near  the  truth  as 
the  old  negro  preacher's  account  of  Jezebel's  death: 
"She  was  settin'  in  a  winder  while  Paul  was  preachin', 
and  she  went  to  sleep  and  fell  down  from  the  third 
story.  They  all  run  down  to  see  what  had  become  of 
her,  and  they  picked  up  seven  baskets  full  of  frag- 
ments." 

But  I  must  give  at  least  one  specimen  of  the  legends ; 
for  this  profound  scholar,  who  knows  the  book  so  well, 
declares  that  the  question  whether  the  narratives  of 
Genesis  are  history  or  legend  is  no  longer  an  open  ques- 
tion. The  reality  in  the  story  of  Dinah  and  the  prince 
of  Shechem  is  this :  "Dinah,  an  Israelitish  family,  is 
overpowered  by  the  Canaanitish  city  of  Shechem,  and 
then  treacherously  avenged  by  Simeon  and  Levi,  the 
most  closely  related  tribes  ;  but  the  other  tribes  of  Israel 
renounce  them  and  allow  the  two  tribes  to  be  destroyed" 
(20,  21). 

This  author  knows  very  well  that  in  all  his  hair- 
brained  speculations  he  contradicts  Jesus  Christ  and  his 
apostles  ;  but  this  does  not  concern  him  in  the  least.  He 
brushes  them  all  aside,  in  the  style  of  Kuenen,  with  these 
few  words:  "The  objection  is  raised  that  Jesus  and  the 
apostles  considered  these  accounts  to  be  fact  and  not 
poetry.  Suppose  they  did  ;  the  men  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment are  not  presumed  to  have  been  exceptional  men  in 
such  matters,  but  shared  the  point  of  view  of  their 
time"  (3). 

What  a  fine  Biblical  scholar  Prof.  Nathan  Schmidt 
must  be  to  eulogize  such  a  book  as  this  ;  what  delightful 
reading  his  review  of  Gunkel  must  be  to  the  editors  and 
admirers  of  the  Biblical  World.  So  the  procession  moves 
on,  and  leaves  "old  fogies"  behind. 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  435 

[June  6,  1903.] 
THE    FATHERHOOD    OF    GOD. 

We  hear  much  in  these  days  of  the  "fatherhood  of 
God  and  the  brotherhood  of  man."  and  it  is  weh,  pro- 
vided we  use  these  expressions  in  their  true  sense.  Lit- 
erally speaking,  there  has  been  on  this  earth  only  one 
person  of  whom  God  is  the  Father.  When  he  is  called 
the  Father  of  any  other  person,  and  when  any  other  per- 
son is  called  his  son,  the  terms  "father"  and  "son"  are 
used,  not  literally,  but  metaphorically.  Sometimes  men 
have  been  called  sons  of  God  because  of  likeness  between 
their  characters  and  that  of  God;  but  in  the  strictly 
Christian  sense  of  the  expression,  none  are  sons  of  God 
except  those  who  have  been  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit. 
These  are  metaphorically  called  sons  of  God  because 
they  have  passed  into  a  new  life  comparable  to  that  on 
which  an  infant  enters  at  birth.  They  are  said  in  this 
sense  to  have  been  born  again. 

But  those  people  with  whom  this  expression  has  be- 
come such  a  shibboleth  of  late  do  not  confine  it  to  this 
meaning.  They  usually  include  in  it  the  whole  human 
race.  Flere,  for  example,  is  that  eccentric  Episcopal 
clerg}-man  in  Xew  York  who  has  been  telling  in  The 
Outlook  the  story  of  his  own  career — W.  S.  Rainsford. 
Speaking  of  a  conversation  which  he  once  had  in  a  rail- 
road train,  he  says :  "I  was  led  on  from  step  to  step  until 
I  dwelt  on  what  I  have  already  said  has  been  an  immense 
power  in  my  life — the  relation  of  man  to  God  because  he 
is  man;  of  the  fatherhood  of  God;  that  men  were  chil- 
dren of  God,  not  because  they  had  been  converted  or 
baptized,  but  because  they  were  born  the  children  of 
God"  {Outlook  for  May  16,  p.  169).  This  is  a  direct 
contradiction  of  what  Jesus  says  on  the  subject,  and  it 


436  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

styles  children  of  God  some  whom  the  Bible  speaks  of 
as  children  of  the  wicked  one,  or,  as  Jesus  himself  put 
it  in  conversation  with  some  Pharisees,  "Ye  are  of  your 
father  the  devil;"  and,  "If  God  were  your  Father,  ye 
would  love  me"   (John  8:42-44). 

I  have  seen  the  statement,  either  from  this  Mr.  Rains- 
ford  or  some  other  admirer  of  the  pet  phrase,  that  if  a 
man  is  a  son  of  God,  he  can  never  cease  to  be  such  any 
more  than  a  son  of  Adam  can  cease  to  be  a  son  of  Adam. 
This  would  be  a  truism  if  a  man  were  literally  a  son  of 
God ;  but  as  no  man  is,  the  truism  becomes  nonsense.  A 
man  who  is  to-day  called  a  son  of  God  metaphorically, 
because  of  his  obedience  to  God,  may  to-morrow  cease 
to  be  God's  son  in  the  same  sense  because  of  his  dis- 
obedience. He  is  delivered  over  to  Satan,  and  becomes 
once  more  a  child  of  the  devil. 

This  treacherous  use  of  the  phrase  works  in  the  in- 
terest of  Universalianism.  Track  up  the  man  with 
whom  it  is  a  favorite,  and  ten  chances  to  one  you  will  find 
that  he  does  not  believe  in  the  Scripture  teaching  about 
future  punishment.  You  will  find,  too,  that  he  has  an 
underestimate  of  the  enormity  of  sin,  and  a  very  loose 
conception  of  the  death  of  Christ  as  an  atonement  for 
sin.  It  is  still  true  that  straws  tell  which  way  the  wind 
blows. 


[June  6,  1903.1 

HAMMURABI    VS.    MOSES. 

I  have  already  called  attention  to  the  code  of  laws 
written  on  stone  by  Hammurabi,  King  of  Babylon,  in 
the  days  of  Abraham,  called  in  the  fourteenth  chapter 
of  Genesis,  Amraphel,  King  of  Shinar.  The  identifica- 
tion of  the  latter  with  the  former  is  admitted  by  archse- 


BIBLiCAL    CRITICISM  437 

ologists.  I  have  also  promised  to  write  something  in  the 
way  of  comparison  between  this  code  and  the  civil  code 
of  ]\Ioses.  I  now  propose  to  make  a  brief  comparison 
of  the  treatment  of  capital  crimes  in  these  codes. 

In  Hammurabi's  code  there  are  thirty-three  crimes 
for  which  men  or  women  were  to  be  put  to  death;  in 
the  law  of  Moses,  only  seventeen.  This  shows  at  once 
that  the  law  of  Moses  was  more  enlightened  and  far  less 
severe  in  its  dealings  with  the  sins  of  men  than  was  the 
law  of  Hammurabi,  written  nearly  a  thousand  years 
earlier. 

When  we  come  to  compare  the  character  of  the 
crimes  thus  made  capital  offenses,  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  two  codes  is  still  more  striking.  A  large  num- 
ber of  sins  punishable  by  death  under  the  law  of  Moses 
are  passed  over  in  silence  in  the  code  of  Hammurabi. 
For  instance,  idolatry,  to  which  Hammurabi  was  himself 
extremely  devoted,  worshiping  all  the  gods  of  the  Baby- 
lonian Pantheon  ;  blasphemy,  punishable  with  death  under 
Moses,  is  not  even  mentioned  by  Hammurabi :  so  with 
the  utterance  of  false  prophecy;  so  with  witchcraft,  sod- 
omy, incest,  prostitution,  bestiality,  and  rebellion  against 
the  decision  of  judges.  It  was  certainly  not  an  enlight- 
ened legislation  which  took  no  cognizance  of  these  as 
offenses  against  God  and  society. 

A  characteristic  difference,  also,  is  seen  when  we  con- 
sider some  of  the  deeds  punishable  by  death  under  Ham- 
murabi's code,  but  not  so  punished  under  Moses.  For 
instance,  "If  a  man  ensnares  another,  putting  a  ban  upon 
him,"  by  which  is  meant  bewitching  him,  or,  as  the 
negroes  would  express  it,  hoodooing  him.  he  was  put  to 
death. 

Again,  if  a  man  charge  another  with  committing  a 
capital  crime,  and  failed  to  prove  it,  he  was  put  to  death. 


438  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Again,  the  crime  of  theft  was  in  most  instances  a  capital 
crime.  If  a  man  stole  property  from  a  temple  or  from 
the  court,  he  was  killed.  If  he  should  buy  property  from 
the  son  or  slave  of  another  man,  he  was  considered  a 
thief  and  put  to  death.  If  he  should  steal  cattle  or  other 
property  from  a  freedman,  he  was  to  restore  tenfold, 
and  if  he  had  nothing  with  which  to  repay,  he  was  to  be 
put  to  death.  Again,  if  one  should  permit  runaway 
slaves  to  conceal  themselves  in  his  house,  he  was  put  to 
death.  Quite  a  number  of  other  offenses  of  like  char- 
acter with  these  were  capital  crimes. 

The  universal  mode  of  executing  a  criminal  under 
the  law  of  ]\Ioses  was  stoning,  and  he  was  stoned  by  the 
men  of  the  community  in  which  he  lived,  the  witnesses 
on  whose  testimony  he  was  condemned  being  required  to 
throw  the  first  stones.  Under  Hammurabi's  code  the 
only  method  of  executing  a  criminal  that  is  mentioned 
is  by  throwing  him  or  her  into  the  river,  presumably 
bound  so  as  not  to  be  able  to  swim.  In  some  instances, 
where  two  parties  co-operated  in  the  crime,  they  were 
tied  together  and  thrown  into  the  river.  As  this  is  the 
only  method  of  execution  named  in  the  code,  it  is  prob- 
able that  it  was  universal.  As  the  country  of  Babylonia 
was  full  of  canals  supplied  with  water  from  the  Eu- 
phrates and  the  Tigris,  this  method  of  executing  crimi- 
nals was  not  inconvenient ;  and  it  is  highly  probable  that 
the  bodies  of  those  thus  drowned  were  allowed  to  float 
away  into  the  Persian  Gulf.  In  Palestine,  stoning  to 
death  was  equally  and  even  more  convenient,  because  in 
every  part  of  the  land  stones  suitable  for  the  purpose 
could  easily  be  picked  up. 

Our  evolutionary  critics  have  already  commenced 
applying  their  theory  to  the  code  of  Hammurabi  by  say- 
ing that  long  ages  of  development  must  have  preceded 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  439 

it,  but  any  one  who  reads  the  code  can  see  clearly  that 
he  claimed  to  be  the  originator  of  it  himself,  and  there 
is  nothing  in  it  that  could  not  have  been  originated  by 
any  man  of  good  sense  and  experience  with  men  and 
with  the  afifairs  of  government. 

Before  the  discovery  of  this  code  it  was  claimed  by 
the  same  critics  that  Moses  could  not  have  written  his 
code  because  he  lived  too  early  for  the  long  period  of 
development  which  must  have  preceded  the  existence  of 
such  a  code.  Xow  we  find  a  code  more  elaborate  than 
that  of  ]\Ioses,  enacted  nearly  a  thousand  years  before 
his,  and  the  question  for  our  evolutionists  is.  Had  a  suf- 
ficient number  of  centuries  intervened  between  the  two 
to  enable  Moses  to  make  a  code  so  much  better  than  that 
of  Hammurabi?  I  think,  again,  that  to  a  man  of  com- 
mon sense  it  w^ould  appear  that  Closes  could  very  easily 
make  a  better  set  of  laws  than  were  made  by  his  heathen 
predecesso- 

We  will  linve  some  more  points  of  comparison  to 
present  hereafter. 


[Jan.  30.  1904.] 

DAVID'S     CHARGE     RESPECTIXG    JOAE     AND 
SHIMEI. 

A  friend  has  sent  me  the  following  extract  from  the 
Watchinan,  the  well-known  Baptist  newspaper  of  Bos- 
ton, Mass. : 

In  studying  the  International  Sunday-school  lesson  for  this 
week,  "David's  Charge  to  Solomon"  (i  Chron.  28:  i-io),  all  dili- 
gent students  will  turn  to  the  parallel  passage  in  i  Kings.  The 
very  last  words  of  David,  as  recorded  in  i  Kings  2 :  5-0,  present 
a  moral  difficulty  of  the  gravest  import.  David  is  represented  as 
commanding  his  son  not  to  let  the  head  of  Joab,  his  lifelong 
comrade  and  lieutenant,  go  down  to  the  grave  in  peace.     And  in 


440  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

spite  of  the  oath  by  which  he  had  forgiven  Shimei,  David  is 
represented  as  commanding  Solomon  to  slay  him.  Prof.  George 
Adam  Smith,  however,  has  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  these 
horrible  words,  clothing  a  horrible  spirit,  are  probably  not  the 
words  of  David.  They  are  an  interpolation  by  some  scribe  ot 
the  legal  school  in  Israel,  which  enforced  the  extermination  of 
the  enemies  of  the  pious.  This  view  is  borne  out  by  the  fact  that 
the  king,  as  pictured  in  5-9,  is  quite  incompatible  with  the  picture 
given  of  him  in  the  previous  chapter,  and  the  author  of  verses 
13-46  could  not  have  known  of  verses  5-9,  for  he  gives  other 
grounds  for  the  slaughter  of  Joab.  In  view  of  all  the  evidence, 
Dr.  Smith  says  of  this  passage :  "We  have  much  reason  to  let  it 
go,  and,  letting  it  go,  we  remove  from  the  most  interesting  of 
Old  Testament  stories  of  character,  a  termination  which  saddens 
every  charm  and  blights  every  promise  revealed  by  its  previous 
progress." 

Prof.  George  Adam  Smith,  and  critics  of  his  school, 
are  a  little  too  fast  in  finding  "horrible  words  clothing  a 
horrible  spirit"  in  the  lips  of  Old  Testament  characters  : 
and  he  and  his  colaborers  are  also  too  quick  in  canceling 
passages  in  the  Old  Testament  which  do  not  harmonize 
with  their  conjectures. 

Joab  had  committed  two  foul  murders,  but  such  was 
his  position  of  power  and  influence  in  the  kingdom  tliat 
David  felt  incapable  of  bringing  him  to  justice.  He  ex- 
pressed his  feeling  on  the  subject  by  saying,  ''Ye  are  too 
hard  for  me,  ye  sons  of  Zeruiah ;"  but  he  evidently  hoped 
that  his  son  Solomon,  with  the  wisdom  which  would 
characterize  him,  and  the  peace  which  would  prevail 
during  his  reign,  would  be  able  to  bring  this  great  crim- 
inal to  justice:  and  he  felt  that  it  would  be  a  permanent 
injury  to  the  nation  to  allow  such  a  man  to  go  down  to 
his  grave  in  peace.  A  criminal  act  did  not  lose  its 
criminality  nor  cease  to  demand  punishment  by  the  lapse 
of  time  in  that  age  any  more  than  it  does  in  this.  He 
directed   Solomon  to  deal  with  Joab   "according  to  his 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  441 

wisdom,"  and  not  to  let  his  hoary  head  go  down  in  peace 
to  the  grave,  meaning  evidently  that  Solomon  would 
have  wisdom  enough  as  well  as  power  enough  to  bring 
about  the  desired  end  in  a  way  that  would  not  bring- 
reproach  upon  the  throne  ;  and  Solomon  showed  his  wis- 
dom by  giving  Joab  a  chance  to  further  develop  his 
criminal  character,  which  he  did  by  supporting  Adonijah 
in  his  second  conspiracy. 

As  to  Shimei,  it  is  true  that  David  swore  to  him  that 
he  would  not  put  him  to  death  with  the  sword,  but  this 
was  not  the  extension  of  pardon  to  Shimei  for  his  crime, 
in  the  sense  in  which  criminals  are  pardoned  under  our 
own  Government.  David  had  no  authority  under  the 
law  of  ]\Ioses  to  pardon  a  criminal,  neither  was  this 
authority  vested  in  any  other  person  or  persons  under 
that  law.  He  could  only  refrain  from  executing  the  pen- 
alty. As  respects  the  law  of  the  land,  Shimei  was  just 
as  deserving  of  death  after  David  died  as  he  had  been 
before,  notwithstanding  David's  oath  that  he  would  not 
slay  him.  As  in  the  case  of  Joab,  however,  David's  idea 
of  sound  government  policy  prohibited  the  thought  of 
allowing  such  a  criminal  to  pass  altogether  unpunished. 
He  left  this  case  also  to  the  wisdom  of  Solomon,  and 
Solomon  exhibited  his  wisdom  by  ordering  Shimei  to 
build  a  house  inside  of  Jerusalem  where  his  conduct 
could  be  closely  watched,  and  not  to  go  outside  of  that 
city  as  far  as  the  brook  Kedron,  at  the  hazard  of  his  life. 
Shimei  had  his  life  in  his  own  hands,  and  it  was  only 
when  he  violated  the  condition  of  being  spared  that  the 
penalty  fell  upon  him,  and  it  was  clearly  understood  by 
everybody  that  Shimei  was  killed  not  merely  for  leaving- 
the  city,  Init  for  the  crime  that  he  had  committed  against 
David.  Leaving  the  city  was  only  a  violation  of  the  con- 
dition on  which  he  had  thus  far  been  spared.   It  is  highly 


442  SHORT   ESSAYS  IN 

probable  that  if  he  had  remained  in  the  city  some  other 
evidence  of  his  wickedness  would  have  been  developed, 
which  would  have  served  the  immediate  occasion  of  dis- 
charging the  obligation  which  David  had  placed  upon 
Solomon. 

When  George  Adam  Smith  pronounces  the  words  of 
David,  in  thus  charging  Solomon,  "horrible  words,  cloth- 
ing a  horrible  spirit,"  he  does  gross  injustice  to  the  man; 
but  this  injustice  is  in  keeping  with  the  constant  reitera- 
tion of  destructive  critics  that  David  was  an  outlaw,  full 
of  bloodthirstiness,  without  religion,  and  therefore  inca- 
pable of  writing  the  Psalms  which  are  ascribed  to  him  in 
the  Bible.  I  am  afraid  that  these  critics  will  never  be 
forgiven  for  their  slanderous  representations  of  Old  Tes- 
tament saints. 


[July  13,  1903.] 
HISTORICAL    STUDY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 

It  is  quite  common  with  young  scholars,  when  they 
begin  to  get  hold  of  important  ideas,  to  imagine  them- 
selves original  discoverers,  and  they  begin  to  pity  a 
world  which  knew  so  little  before  they  were  born. 
Striking  examples  of  this  weakness  are  seen  among  the 
younger  class  of  our  "modern  scientific  critics."  Here, 
for  instance,  is  ]\Ir.  Rush  Rhees,  now  president  of 
Rochester  (N.  Y.)  University.  He  has  an  article  in  the 
June  number  of  the  Biblical  World  in  which  he  tells 
what  historical  study  of  the  Bible  has  done — a  kind  of 
study  that  is  as  old  as  the  Bible.  I  quote  a  few  of  hi3 
assertions : 

In  the  first  place,  modern  historical  study  of  the  Bible  has 
effected  a  recedence  of  emphasis  on  theories  of  inspiration  be- 
hind the  recognition  of  what  we  may  call  the  fact  of  inspiration. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  443 

By  the  fact  of  inspiration  1  mean  the  recognition  that  in  the  Bible 
the  human  spirit  finds  stimuhis  and  instruction  for  those  deeper 
movements  of  the  soul  which  we  call  religious. 

Now,  reader,  study  that  sentence  carefully,  and  if 
you  don't  learn  from  it  what  inspiration  is,  confess  your- 
self a  blockhead. 

Secondly,  this  study  has  led  to  the  recedence  of  the  theory  of 
inspiration,  because  it  has  shown  the  essential  reverence  of  criti- 
cism. 

I  suppose  this  means  that  when  you  see  the  essential 
reverence  of  criticism,  your  theory  of  inspiration  will 
"recede  ;"  that  is,  it  will  take  a  back  seat.  With  him, 
however,  inspiration  seems  not  to  have  taken  any  seat — 
it  has  "skipped." 

Thirdly,  the  essential  reverence  of  criticism  has  brought  to 
mind  the  fact  that  Christianity  is  the  flower  of  a  rich  growth, 
the  growth  of  the  religion  of  Israel. 

This  "essential  reverence  of  criticism"  is  a  wonderful 
thing.  It  has  brought  to  mind  a  fact  which  everybody 
in  Christendom  knew  two  thousand  years  before  "criti- 
cism" was  born. 

Furthermore,  the  modern  historical  study  of  the  Scriptures 
offers  the  Bible  as  the  natural  text-book  for  religious  education. 

If  the  gentleman  had  as  much  reverence  for  the  Bible 
as  he  has  for  criticism,  he  would  have  learned  that  Moses 
offered  his  law  as  the  natural  text-book  for  religious 
education ;  that  Ezra  used  it  in  this  way ;  that  the  mother 
and  grandmother  of  Timothy  did  the  same  :  and  that  it 
was  never  absent  from  the  hands  of  Jesus  and  Paul 
when  they  were  engaged  in  the  religious  education  of 
the  people. 

Modern  historical  study,  let  it  also  be  said,  in  offering  the 
Bible  as  a  text-book,  calls  positive  attention  to  the  fact  that  our 
religion  is  not  the  religion  of  a  book. 


444  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Well,  if  by  "our  religion"  he  means  the  religion  of 
himself  and  his  fellow-devotees  of  "criticism,"  I  am 
ready  to  believe  that  it  is  not  the  religion  of  the  Book; 
but  if  he  will  examine  it  a  little  more  carefully,  he  may 
find  that  several  books,  and  these  not  the  best,  are  re- 
sponsible for  it. 

Modern  historical  study  of  the  Bible  has  discovered,  how- 
ever, that  the  rel-gion  of  a  book  is  precisely  the  thing  which 
Jesus  had  to  contend  with  in  his  controversies  with  the  scribes. 

Before  writing  this  the  brother  ought  to  have  given 
the  four  Gospels  at  least  one  careful  reading.  It  would 
have  saved  him  from  reversing  the  positions  of  Jesus 
and  the  scribes.  He  would  have  learned  that  the  scribes 
contended  for  a  body  of  oral  traditions  which  had  never 
been  written  in  a  book,  while  Jesus  denounced  them  for 
making  void  the  word  of  God  by  their  traditions.  He 
also  demanded  of  them,  "Did  not  Moses  give  you  the 
law,  and  yet  none  of  you  doeth  the  law?" 

I  must  admit  that  there  is  at  least  one  passage  in 
Matthew  which  our  author  has  read  ;  it  is  the  remark  of 
Jesus  that  ''Moses  for  the  hardness  of  your  hearts  suf- 
fered you  to  put  away  your  wives."  This  passage,  how- 
ever, has  been  so  often  quoted  by  "the  critics,"  and  mis- 
represented, that  the  quotation  of  it  by  one  of  them  is 
no  proof  that  he  has  ever  read  it  in  the  Gospel.  He  says 
that  in  this  Jesus  was  "shattering  the  idol  of  the  religion 
of  a  book" — that  he  "penetrated  through  to  something 
underneath  the  letter  of  the  book."  He  did  no  such 
thing.  He  only  taught  that  this  precept  of  Moses  was 
intended  to  be  temporary ;  and  in  the  same  breath  he 
affirmed  the  divine  authority  of  that  same  old  book,  by 
saying:  "Have  ye  not  read  that  he  who  made  them  from 
the  beginning,  made  them  male  and  female?"  and  said, 
'Tor  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  mother, 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  445 

and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife;  and  the  two  shall  be  one 
flesh."  In  this  he  not  only  appeals  to  the  book,  but  he 
quotes  its  words  as  the  words  of  God  himself. 

Modern  historical  study  of  the  Bible  brings  clearly  to  mind 
Jesus'  constant  opposition  to,  because  of  his  relentless  opposition 
by,  the  reHgion  of  a  book. 

Here  it  is  again.  Friend  Rhees  is  like  the  horse- 
trader  who,  having  said  that  the  horse  was  sixteen  feet 
high,  stuck  to  it.  Not  contented  yet  with  repeating  this 
pet  assertion,  he  says  again : 

Modern  historical  study  of  the  Bible  lifts  its  voice  in  protest 
against  the  conception  that  Christianity  is  the  religion  of  a  book. 

Go  ahead,  hard-head. 

After  demonstrating,  by  the  force  of  repeated  and 
even  tiresome  assertions,  that  Christianity  is  not  the 
religion  of  a  book,  our  critic  occupies  a  page  or  two  in 
showing  that  it  is  a  religion  icitli  a  book.  This  is  not  a 
great  compliment  to  Christianity ;  for  the  same  may  be 
said  of  ^lohammedanism,  of  Buddhism,  of  Confucian- 
ism, of  ]\Iormonism,  etc.  Even  Bob  Ingersoll's  religion 
was  a  religion  with  many  books ;  and  the  religion  of 
destructive  critics  is  a  religion  with  a  cartload  of  books. 
Tell  us  something  that  we  don't  know  already,  and  some- 
thing that  is  true. 


[March  19.  1904.] 

MYTH    AND    FICTIOX    IX    THE    BIBLE. 

I  am  perhaps  at  fault  in  not  having  given  the  names 
of  the  professors  engaged  in  the  symposium  published 
by  the  Biblical  JJ^orld  of  November  last,  on  the  subject 
of  "Myth  and  Fiction  in  the  Bible."  They  are:  A.  C. 
Zenos,  of  ^IcCormick  Theological  Seminary,  Chicago ; 
Charles  F.  Kent,  of  Yale  Divinity  School;  William  G. 


446  SHORT   ESSAYS  IN 

Ballantine,  of  the  International  Y.  M.  C.  A.  Training 
School,  Springfield,  Mass. ;  George  A.  Barton,  of  Bryn 
Mawr  College;  Benjamin  W.  Bacon,  of  Yale  Divinity- 
School;  William  H.  Ryder,  of  Andover  Theological 
Seminary ;  Sylvester  Burnham,  of  Hamilton  Theological 
Seminary ;  Henry  S.  Nash,  of  the  Episcopal  Theological 
School,  Cambridge,  Mass.,  and  John  E.  McFadyen,  of 
Knox  College,  Toronto. 

I  wish  to  speak  chiefly  in  this  article  of  what  some  of 
these  gentlemen  say  respecting  our  Saviour's  parables, 
but  first  I  must  take  notice  of  one  more  remark  on  the 
subject  of  myths,  by  Professor  Barton.  He  says:  "Since 
anthropology  has  made  it  clear  that  all  peoples  have 
passed  through  a  stage  of  development  in  which  myths 
played  an  important  part,  if  no  myth  could  find  a  place 
in  an  inspired  book  it  would  follow  that  God  could  not 
reveal  himself  at  all  to  the  human  race  during  large  por- 
tions of  its  history."  I  should  like  to  ask  this  Professor 
if  there  are  not  races  of  men  now  living  who  are  in  as 
low  a  stage  of  development  as  that  in  which  myths  were 
so  necessary.  How,  then,  has  it  been  possible  for  God 
to  be  revealed  to  the  Fiji  Islanders  and  the  Hottentots, 
as  he  has  been,  through  the  agency  of  modern  mission- 
aries? Did  those  missionaries  preach  myths,  or  did  they 
tell  those  degraded  people  the  plain  truth  about  God? 
If  he  should  attempt  to  answer  this  question,  he  would 
see  the  folly  of  the  statement  which  I  have  quoted  from 
him.  Then,  again,  what  was  the  stage  of  development 
of  the  Hebrews  when  the  Book  of  Genesis,  so  replete 
with  myths,  if  you  allow  this  scholar  to  tell  it,  was 
written  and  published?  According  to  the  theory  of  his 
school,  this  book  was  the  result  of  writings  by  J  and  E 
in  the  time  of  Amos  and  Hosea,  or  possibly  as  early  as 
the  time  of  Elijah  and  Elisha.     This  was  long  after  the 


BIBLICAL    CRITIC fS2r  447 

enlightened  period  of  Solomon  and  David,  and  was  in 
the  midst  of  a  period  of  literary  enlightenment  of  the 
Hebrew  tribes,  according  to  all  the  masters  of  modern 
criticism.  Where,  then,  was  the  necessity  here  spoken  of 
for  iiiyths  to  play  such  a  i)art  that  without  them  God 
could  not  reveal  himself  at  all? 

Now^  for  the  parables.  This  same  Professor  says, 
"Our  Saviour  himself  has  in  his  parables  forever  con- 
secrated the  fruit  of  the  imagination,  or  fiction,  to 
religious  service,"  and  Professor  Bacon  says,  "Xo  dif- 
ference of  opinion  exists  among  Christians  as  to  the 
value  of  fiction  in  the  Bible,  when  the  instance  in  ques- 
tion is  the  parables  of  Jesus."  Professor  Barton  pro- 
ceeds to  give  some  examples.  He  says:  "The  parable  of 
the  nobleman  wdio  went  into  a  far  country  to  receive  for 
himself  a  kingdom  and  to  return,  can  be  traced  to  'a 
historical  kernel,'  since  both  Herod  the  Great  and  Ar- 
chelaus  had  done  this  very  thing.  Even  then  the  picture 
as  drawn  by  our  Lord  is  partly  imaginary,  though  based 
upon  an  incident  of  history."  This  statement  is  self- 
contradictory;  for  if  both  Herod  and  his  son  Archelaus 
had  done  the  very  thing  described  in  the  parable,  how 
can  the  description  be  partly  imaginary?  The  story  of 
the  parable  is  not  fictitious,  but  a  representation  of  that 
which  had  been  done  more  than  once  in  the  kingdom  of 
Judah,  and  many  times  in  other  provinces  of  the  Roman 
Empire. 

He  next  says  that  "the  parable  of  the  rich  man  who 
planned  to  pull  down  his  barns  and  build  greater  is  based 
upon  a  poetical  passage  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Ecclesi- 
asticus,  itself  a  work  of  the  imagination."  But  why  go 
back  to  the  fifth  chapter  of  Ecclesiasticus  to  find  a  pros- 
perous farmer  doing  this,  when  it  was  occurring  every 
year  in  wdiich  there  was  an  unusual  growth  of  grain  in 


448  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Palestine?  Professor  Barton  should  remember  that  the 
granaries  of  the  Jews  were  temporary  structures,  like 
those  in  Palestine  at  the  present  day,  cheaply  built,  and 
easily  torn  down  and  reconstructed  as  occasion  might 
demand.  And  such  procedure  on  the  part  of  rich  men 
was  just  as  common  as  were  seasons  of  unusual  produc- 
tiveness. As  for  the  fifth  chapter  of  Ecclesiasticus,  it 
mentions  no  incident  of  the  kind,  and  has  nothing  con- 
nected with  the  subject  except  the  commonplace  warn- 
ing, "Set  not  thy  heart  upon  thy  goods,  and  say  not. 
They  are  sufficient  for  me." 

Again,  he  says  that  "the  parable  of  the  wicked  serv- 
ant, whose  lord  delayed,  but  returned  unexpectedly,  has 
been  shown  to  be  based  on  a  pre-Christian  tale  of  a  secu- 
lar character,  which  was  widely  read  among  the  Jews." 
If  this  is  true,  and  if  the  said  tale  is  a  true  tale,  the 
parable  would  still  not  be  a  fiction.  And  why  go  back 
to  that  particular  tale  when  such  incidents  must  have 
occurred  frequently  in  the  age  of  feudal  castles  owned 
by  tyrannical  lords  and  cared  for  in  their  absence  by 
servants  who  were  frequently  neglectful  of  their  duty? 
Why  go  about  searching  for  a  lump  of  coal  in  a  coal- 
yard? 

Again,  the  Professor  says:  "Sometimes,  as  in  the 
parable  of  the  prodigal  son,  we  are  able  to  trace  no 
antecedents.  So  far  as  we  can  tell,  it  is  a  pure  work 
of  Christ's  imagination  ;  but  even  so,  it  contains  more 
real  truth  than  most  of  the  incidents  which  have  hap- 
pened in  history,  and,  better  than  that,  they  have  for 
nineteen  hundred  years  conveyed  a  knowledge  of  God's 
forgiving  love."  Is  it  true  that  we  can  trace  this  incident 
to  no  antecedents?  Were  there  no  fathers  among  the 
Jews  with  two  sons,  one  of  whom  acted  as  this  prodigal 
son  did?     And  has  not  the  story  been  repeated  in  actual 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM 


449 


life  thousands  of  times  since  that  day?  Professor  Bar- 
ton's memory  or  observation  must  be  defective  if  he  can 
not  recall  among  his  own  personal  acquaintances  some 
incidents  of  the  kind.  True,  we  do  not  know  the  name 
of  the  old  father  whom  Jesus  had  specially  in  his  mind, 
nor  the  names  of  his  two  sons,  nor  the  exact  place  of 
his  habitation  :  but  the  fact  that  such  incidents  are  com- 
mon in  life  shows  that  Jesus  did  not  draw  upon  his 
imagination,  but  upon  his  memory.  The  Professor  is 
not  only  mistaken  on  this  point,  but  he  ascribes  a  value 
to  this  parable  which  it  does  not  possess ;  for  he  says  that 
it  has  conveyed  a  knowledge  of  God's  forgiving  love  bet- 
ter than  most  of  the  incidents  which  have  happened  in 
history.  It  is  not  the  parable  which  conveys  the  knowl- 
edge of  God's  forgiving  love  ;  it  is  that  which  the  parable 
was  intended  to  justify  in  the  minds  of  the  hearers  of 
Jesus.  He  was  receiving  publicans  and  sinners.  The 
Pharisees  rebuked  him  for  it,  as  being  unworthy  of  a 
man  professing  holiness.  In  order  to  defend  himself,  he 
recited  to  them  three  parables,  each  containing  an  argu- 
ment from  analogy.  First,  that  of  the  man  with  one 
hundred  sheep,  one  of  which  had  gone  astray,  v/ho  left 
the  ninety  and  nine  and  hunted  up  the  stray  sheep,  and, 
on  finding  it,  called  upon  the  neighboring  shepherds  to 
rejoice  with  him.  Second,  that  of  the  poor  woman  who 
lost  one  of  ten  pieces  of  silver,  and  who,  after  finding 
it  by  a  careful  search,  called  her  neighbors  together  to 
rejoice  for  the  piece  that  was  found.  Third,  that  of  the 
father,  one  of  whose  sons  had  wandered  off  an.d  was 
supposed  to  be  dead,  but  who  came  home  in  extreme 
wretchedness  and  was  joyfully  received.  These  incidents 
in  which  the  Pharisees  approved  the  conduct  of  the  prin- 
cipal actors,  were  presented  by  Jesus  to  show  how  incon- 
sistent they  were  in  disapproving  his  reception  of  peni- 


450  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

tent  publicans  and  sinners.  It  was  his  conduct  in  the 
premises  which  has  conveyed  a  knowledge  of  God's  for- 
giving love,  and  not  either  or  all  of  the  three  parables. 
The  parable  of  the  prodigal  reveals  only  the  forgiving 
love  of  his  father;  and  it  fails  to  do  even  this  if  it  is  a 
fiction.  It  is  used  only  as  an  argument  by  analogy  to 
justify  Jesus  in  manifesting  divine  forgiveness  toward 
sinful  men.  Whether,  then,  we  consider  the  historicity 
of  the  story,  or  the  meaning  of  it,  Professor  Barton 
shows  a  misunderstanding  of  it  throughout. 

It  is  high  time  that  these  critics  had  ceased  to  speak 
of  the  parables  of  Jesus  as  fictions.  They  can  not  name 
a  single  one  which  is  not  based  upon  some  actual  occur- 
rence. Even  the  parable  of  the  tares — in  which  a  man  is 
represented  as  sowing  tares  in  a  neighbor's  wheatfield,  a 
thing  unheard  of  in  America,  and  one  which  has  been 
called  in  question  many  times  by  skeptical  writers — is 
not  to  be  set  down  as  purely  imaginary.  Dean  Alford, 
in  his  commentary  on  the  passage,  states  as  a  fact  of  his 
own  knowledge  that  a  small  wheatfield  in  England  had 
been  poisoned  in  this  way ;  and  when  we  remember  that 
the  fields  of  the  Hebrews  were  nearly  all,  like  those  in 
France  at  the  present  day,  very  small,  so  that  a  malicious 
enemy  might  sow  seed  all  over  one  of  them  in.  a  single 
night,  it  is  not  at  all  surprising  that  this  should  have 
been  done,  and  done  in  instances  so  frequent  that  the 
disciples  were  not  surprised  when  Jesus  made  it  the  basis 
of  a  parable.  This  treatment  of  the  parables  of  Jesus  by 
this  class  of  critics  is  but  a  specimen  of  the  conjectural 
way  in  which  they  treat  the  whole  Bible,  Old  Testament 
and  New ;  and  it  shows  how  utterly  unreliable  their 
methods  are. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  451 

"It  goes  without  saving."  If  it  does,  why  not  let 
it  go  that  way,  instead  of  saying  it?  Who  originated 
this  piece  of  nonsense?  and  why  do  sensible  men  keep 
using  it? 


"I   CREDIT    III.M    WITH   AS    MUCH   SINCERITY  AS   I    CLAIM 

FOR  MYSELF."  Perhaps  you  do;  but  this  doesn't  prove 
that  he  is  more  sincere  than  he  ought  to  be.  And  if  he 
is  as  sincere  as  you,  this  doesn't  prove  that  anything  he 
teaches  is  true. 

"New  thought."  The  venders  of  quack  medicines, 
in  order  to  keep  up  their  reputations  for  original  modes 
of  treatment,  have  to  be  constantly  inventing  new  names 
with  Vv'hich  to  label  their  nostrums.  So  with  the  venders 
of  patent  notions  in  philosophy  and  religion.  Every  fel- 
low who  has  become  enamored  of  an  old  and  exploded 
notion,  labels  it  "Xew  Thought,"  and  immediately  the 
suckers  bite  at  it. 


[June  4.  1904.1 
THE    AMERICAN    BIBLE    LEAGUE. 

It  is  already  known  to  most  of  our  readers  that  an 
organization  under  the  title  above  given  was  effected  last 
winter.  A  convention  held  in  Xew  York  City  during  the 
first  week  of  May,  in  which  addresses  were  delivered  by 
a  number  of  the  most  eminent  scholars  in  the  United 
States,  first  arrested  the  public  attention  to  its  existence 
and  purposes. 

Both  the  secular  and  religious  papers  of  our  Eastern 
cities  gave  its  proceedings  special  notices,  some  of  them 
favorable  and  some  unfavorable.     The  comments  of  the 


452  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

Independent  are  the  most  unfavorable  which  I  have  seen, 
and  I  devote  this  article  to  a  consideration  of  them.  The 
editor  says : 

The  form  of  application  for  membership  in  the  League  thus 
defines  the  conclusion  which  must  be  reached  by  the  studies  of 
its  membership :  "Believing  in  the  divine  origin,  inspiration,  in- 
tegrity and  supreme  authority  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  I  desire  to  become  a  member  of  the  American 
Bible  League." 

To  say  that  this  conclusion  "must  be  reached  by  the 
studies  of  members"  is  an  unfair  representation.  It  im- 
plies that  these  members  are  to  enter  upon  a  course  of 
studies  with  the  conclusion  which  they  are  to  reach  dic- 
tated in  advance ;  but  the  statement  quoted  from  the 
League  defines  the  members  as  having  already  reached 
their  conclusions  before  applying  for  membership.  The 
latter  position  is  a  sensible  one,  and  is  one  which  is  com- 
mon to  persons  applying  for  membership  in  any  kind  of 
league ;  whereas,  the  position  ascribed  to  them  by  the 
Independent  is  too  absurd  to  be  thought  of  by  sensible 
men.  The  attitude  of  the  Independent  toward  the 
League  is  more  fully  indicated  in  the  following  para- 
graph : 

The  Bible  League  does  not  represent  a  healthy  or  courageous 
attitude  towards  the  Bible.  The  Bible  needs  study,  not  defense. 
Students  of  the  Bible  are  not  its  enemies,  but  its  friends.  The 
proper  sentiment  toward  any  investigation  of  the  Bible  is  not 
that  of  hostility,  but  of  co-operation  and  friendship.  To  attack 
the  higher  critics  or  the  believers  in  evolution  as  enemies  of  the 
Bible,  is  a  suicidal  kind  of  war.  It  is  the  most  effective  way  of 
discrediting  the  Bible. 

There  are  four  statements  in  this  brief  paragraph  to 
which  I  invite  separate  attention.  First,  the  charge  that 
the  League  does  not  represent  a  healthy  and  courageous 
attitude  toward  the  Bible ;  because  the  Bible  needs  study, 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  453 

not  defense.  When  and  how  did  this  editor  learn  that 
the  Bible  needs  study  and  not  defense?  Has  he  never 
defended  it  himself?  Have  all  the  books  written  in 
defense  of  it  through  past  ages  been  written  in  vain? 
Were  none  needed?  The  Bible  is  assailed  by  ingenious 
sophists  and  by  men  of  such  general  learning  as  to  turn 
thousands  of  people  away  from  it.  When  assailants  of 
the  Bible  are  so  numerous,  powerful  and  learned,  is  it  a 
cowardly  thing  to  undertake  its  defense?  Surely  this 
statement  was  made  by  the  editor  in  the  hurry  of  writing 
an  editorial  without  serious  reflection. 

In  the  second  place,  he  says  that  students  of  the  Bible 
are  not  its  enemies,  but  its  friends.  Everybody  knows 
that  this  depends  on  the  class  of  students  to  which  refer- 
ence is  made.  The  editor  knows  full  well  that  multitudes 
of  men  have  studied  the  Bible  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
finding  fault  with  it;  that  many  of  its  students  have  been 
its  bitterest  enemies.  He  knows  that  the  real  friends  of 
the  Bible  have  always  found  it  necessary  to  defend  it 
against  some  of  the  students  of  it. 

In  the  third  place,  he  says  that  the  proper  sentiment 
towards  any  investigation  of  the  Bible  is  not  that  of  hos- 
tility, but  that  of  friendship.  According  to  this,  when  an 
infidel  investigates  the  Bible  for  the  purpose  of  destroy- 
ing its  influence  with  the  people,  the  proper  sentiment 
toward  him  is  one  of  friendship  and  co-operation.  But 
if  the  Independent  co-operated  with  Colonel  Ingersoll 
during  his  lifetime  in  his  "Mistakes  of  Moses,"  the  fact 
has  faded  from  my  memory. 

In  the  fourth  place,  he  says  that  to  attack  the  higher 
critics  or  the  believers  in  evolution  as  enemies  of  the 
Bible  is  a  suicidal  kind  of  war,  and  it  is  the  most  efifective 
way  of  discrediting  the  Bible.  If  the  critics  and  evolu- 
tionists were  correct  in  their  positions,  to  attack  them 


454  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

might  prove  suicidal  to  the  man  who  makes  the  attack, 
and  it  would  certainly  discredit  him  as  a  logician ;  but 
how  it  can  be  the  most  effective  way  of  discrediting  the 
Bible,  is  seen,  I  think,  only  by  the  editor.  If  he  has 
made  this  remarkable  discovery,  he  ought  to  exhibit  the 
reality  of  it  to  the  members  of  the  Bible  League;  for 
his  mere  assertion  of  it  is  not  apt  to  have  much  weight 
with  them,  especially  as  he  belongs  to  the  party  they  are 
attacking. 

In  another  paragraph  the  editor  demands : 

Why  shoiikl  any  lover  of  the  truth  be  afraid  of  investigation, 
no  matter  how  radical?  Who  ever  knew  truth  worsted  in  a  fair 
encounter?  If  these  men  do  not  think  conclusions  reached  by 
nine-tenths  of  our  Bible  scholars  and  ninety-nine  hundredths  of 
our  scientific  men  are  true,  let  them  meet  the  enemy  in  the  fair 
field  of  discussion. 

This  is  a  very  strange  demand  to  make  in  the  face  of 
the  fact  that  this  is  precisely  what  the  leaders  of  this 
League  are  doing,  and  what  they  propose  to  continue 
doing  until  the  truth  shall  be  vindicated. 

In  the  next  paragraph  the  editor  resorts  to  innuendo 
by  saying: 

We  do  not  like  to  say  it,  but  there  is  a  look  of  a  big  publish- 
ing and  financial  scheme  behind  this  League. 

I  sincerely  hope  that  the  big  publishing  scheme  here 
hinted  at  will  prove  a  reality,  and  I  shall  not  regret  if 
some  persons  find  it  a  good  financial  scheme.  I  think 
this  will  be  no  worse  than  if  the  publishers  of  the  Inde- 
pendent shall  be  able  to  make  their  enterprise  a  big  finan- 
cial scheme.  He  thinks  that  the  League  contemplates  the 
supplying  of  a  million  and  a  half  Sunday-school  teachers 
with  primers,  and  that  they  may  finally  publish  some 
works  as  elaborate  as  Hastings'  ''Bible  Dictionary"  and 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  455 

Cheyne's  "Encyclopaedia  Biblica."  He  sees  no  fault  in 
the  big"  publishing  schemes  which  have  brought  out  these 
famous  works,  but  it  fills  him  with  distress  to  anticipate 
a  publication  of  works  equally  elaborate  in  refutation  of 
these  mischievous  volumes.  It  is  devoutly  to  be  hoped 
that  his  worst  fears  in  this  respect  will  be  realized. 

The  last  criticism  that  this  editor  makes  upon  the 
League  is  that  "they  confessedly  take  positions,  not  as 
investigators,  but  as  advocates."  It  would  seem  from 
this  that  he  objects  to  the  position  of  an  advocate.  He 
would  have  a  man  spend  all  his  life  investigating  with- 
out reaching  any  conclusion  of  wdiich  he  can  be  so  cer- 
tain as  to  advocate  it.  He  ought  to  know,  and  if  he  does 
not  know  it  now  he  will  probably  live  to  learn  it,  that 
there  are  men  who  have  already  investigated  the  ques- 
tion of  "the  divine  origin,  inspiration,  integrity,  and 
supreme  authority  of  the  Scriptures,"  and  are  now  pre- 
pared to  adz'ocafc  these  characteristics  of  the  Bible  in  no 
hesitating  tones.  They  have  also  so  thoroughly  investi- 
gated the  positions  and  arguments  of  the  destructive 
critics  that  they  are  prepared  to  make  aggressive  war- 
fare against  them. 

Comments  on  the  convention  by  several  secular  papers 
are  quoted  by  the  Literary  Digest.  The  New  York  Stin 
thinks  that  "in  describing  as  a  'crisis'  the  prerent  situa- 
tion in  Christendom  regarding  the  Bible,  the  League 
does  not  exaggerate."     The  Sun  says : 

If  this  subversive  and  destructive  criticism  was  confined  to 
avowed  opponents  of  religion  and  the  church,  as  it  was  formerly, 
it  might  not  be  an  enemy  dangerous  enough  to  require  the  for- 
mation of  a  Christian  league  against  it ;  but  now  it  has  affected 
profoundly  the  thought,  and  radically  changed  the  view,  of  a 
large  part  of  Christendom  itself. 

The  Xew  York  Globe  expresses  surprise  that  some 


4S6  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

such   organization   as   the   American    Bible    League   has 
not  been  formed  before. 

The  Boston  Transcript  expresses  the  fear  that  the 
launching  of  the  Bible  League  will  merely  stir  up  con- 
troversy, and  suggests  that  before  the  summer  is  past 
the  country  may  be  plunged  in  bitter  religious  strife. 
It  says : 

The  League  comes  in  at  this  time  and  brings  controversy 
with  it.  The  effect  will  be,  it  is  predicted,  that  the  higher  critics 
will  fight  back. 

To  "fight  back"  is  the  very  thing  which  the  friends 
of  the  League  want  the  critics  to  do.  Hitherto  they 
have  been  laying  their  eggs  like  the  ostrich,  and  leaving 
them  to  their  fate.  If  they  can  be  provoked  to  the 
defense  of  their  positions,  the  people  will  all  the  sooner 
detect  their  sophistry.  Which  of  them  has  replied  to 
Baxter's  review  of  Wellhausen,  or  to  any  of  Professor 
Green's  critical  works?  When  has  even  the  warlike 
Professor  Briggs  taken  up  a  formal  defense  of  himself 
against  the  many  refutations  of  his  books  and  essays? 
If  the  work  of  this  Bible  League  shall  bring  these  men, 
with  their  boasted  scholarship,  out  into  the  open  field 
()f  controversy  in  which  blow  shall  be  exchanged  for 
blow,  we  shall  soon  see  which  way  the  tide  of  battle  will 
turn. 

Not  the  least  significant  agent  in  the  predicted  strife 
will  doubtless  be  the  Bible  Student  and  Teacher,  pub- 
lished by  the  League,  which  has  already  begun  to  make 
the  fur  fly,  and  whose  sledge-hammer  blows  have  not  yet 
been  resented  by  the  critics.  The  gauntlet  lies  at  their 
feet,  and  we  are  waiting  to  see  when  they  will  take  it 
up.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  they  have  the  courage  with 
which  the  Transcript  gives  them  credit. 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  457 

[June  II,   1904.] 

DEATH    OF    JUDAS. 

A  brother  asks  me  to  explain  the  evident  contradic- 
tion as  to  the  manner  of  the  death  of  Judas,  as  found  in 
IMatt.  27:5  and  Acts  i:  18.  There  is  no  contradiction. 
Luke  says  that  Judas  fell  headlong  and  burst  asunder, 
while  ^Matthew  says  that  he  hanged  himself.  If  he  had 
not  first  hanged  himself,  he  would  not  have  burst  asun- 
der when  he  fell.  I  have  never  heard  of  a  man  bursting 
wide  open  because  he  fell  from  stumping  his  toe  ;  but  if 
a  man  were  to  hang  himself  in  a  hot  climate,  and  remain 
hanging  for  a  day  or  two,  and  then  fall,  he  would  be 
almost  certain  to  burst  asunder.  So  the  two  accounts 
are  not  contradictory,  but  the  one  explains  the  other. 


[June   II.  1904.1 

TRIXE    IMMERSIOX. 

A  brother  who  has  been  troubled  by  some  trine  im- 
mersionist  friend,  wants  to  know  if  the  Greek  word  hap- 
iidzo  means  to  "dip  repeatedly."  I  answer  that  it  does 
not,  and,  if  it  did,  this  would  not  help  the  doctrine  of 
trine  immersion  ;  for  in  that  case,  instead  of  being  lim- 
ited to  three  dips,  as  he  understands  it,  it  could  be  as 
readily  understood  of  five  or  six  dips. 

The  brother  also  asks  if  this  word  baptidzo  is  the  one 
used  by  Jesus  in  the  commission.  It  is.  and  if  it  meant 
to  dip  repeatedly,  then  we  would  have  Christ  saying, 
''dipping  them  repeatedly  into  the  name  of  the  Father 
and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  In  Mark  the 
commission  would  read,  "He  that  believeth  and  is  dipped 
repeatedly  shall  be  saved."    There  is  no  end  to  the  funny 


458  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

conceits  into  which  men  may  be  driven  when  they  are 
trying  to  evade  the  plain  teaching  of  the  Scriptures. 


I  June  II,  1904.] 
HOW    FAR? 

The  Christian-Evangelist  suggests  the  propriety  of  a 
parhament  of  the  rehgious  press  of  the  country,  for  the 
purpose  of  discussing  some  "very  vital  questions."  The 
last  of  a  series  of  such  vital  questions  which  it  proposes 
is  the  following:  "How  Far  May  the  Religious  News- 
paper Deal  with  Questions  of  Historical  Biblical  Criti- 
cism?" This  is  an  easy  one.  It  can  be  answered  without 
any  discussion.  The  religious  newspaper  may  discuss 
these  questions  just  as  far  as  it  has  brains  enough  and 
information  enough  to  discuss  them  correctly.  You 
might  as  well  raise  the  question,  How  far  may  the  relig- 
ious newspaper  deal  with  questions  relating  to  the  his- 
tory of  baptism? 


[June   II,  1904.1 

WHAT    SHALL    WE    CALL    IT? 

W.  L.  Harris,  of  Washington  City,  is  troubled  with 
the  many  persons  who  do  not  believe  what  Jesus  and  the 
apostles  say  about  future  punishment  for  sin  and  the 
duration  of  it.  He  says  that  they  assign  meanings  to  the 
words  "hell"  and  "eternal"  which  give  to  the  Scriptural 
phraseology  on  the  subject  a  strange  significance.  There 
is  nothing  new-  under  the  sun.  It  has  been  the  practice 
of  a  certain  class  of  freethinkers  for  nearly  two  thousand 
)rears.  This  class  of  men  have  taken  liberties  with  the 
words  of  Christ  which  are  totally  unwarranted,  and  which 
Imply  a  knowledge  of  the  future  state  superior  to  that 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  459 

possessed  by  Jesus.  Xow,  Jesus  is  the  only  being  who 
ever  dweh  in  flesh  with  a  personal  knowledge  of  that 
which  awaits  both  the  good  and  the  bad  in  the  future 
state.  He  not  only  knew  absolutely  the  facts  of  the 
future  state,  but  he  had  a  perfect  knowledge  of  the 
human  language  and  of  the  human  mmd.  He  knew  per- 
fectly in  what  words  to  speak  of  the  future  state  so  as 
to  give  what  he  had  to  say  the  effect  on  the  human  mind 
which  he  desired  to  impart.  When,  therefore,  he  repre- 
sented the  rich  man  as  being  tormented  in  flames  and 
begging  a  drop  of  water  to  cool  his  tongue,  he  chose  that 
mode  of  representing  the  facts  which,  in  his  infinite  wis- 
dom, he  knew  to  be  best.  \Mien  he  represented  the 
wicked  as  being  cast  after  the  final  judgment  into  the 
lake  of  fire  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels,  he 
knew  that  this  also  w^as  the  best  way  of  expressing  the 
reality  in  human  speech.  So,  as  to  all  the  horrifying 
representations  of  that  state  of  misery  which  we  find  in 
the  Xew  Testament,  the  utterances  of  the  apostles  on  the 
subject  come  to  us  with  the  same  stamp  of  divine  wis- 
dom, seeing  that  they  wrote  by  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit 
of  God.  When  men  attempt  to  soften  these  expressions 
so  as  to  make  them  less  alarming  to  the  ungodly,  they 
directly  nullify  to  that  extent  the  teachings  of  the  Lord. 
Even  if  it  be  supposed  that  some  of  these  expressions 
are  used  figuratively,  of  the  truth  of  which  supposition 
it  is  impossible  for  any  human  being  to  be  certain,  it 
would  still  be  assuming  w^isdom  and  knowledge  above 
that  of  Christ  for  us  to  set  aside  his  phraseology  and 
substitute  our  own. 

Xot  until  we  enter  into  the  future  state  ourselves 
shall  we  be  able  to  know  anything  at  all  about  it  except 
what  we  now  read  in  the  Xew  Testament.  The  man  of 
faith  will  therefore  accept  all  the  words  of  Jesus  and  the 


46o  SHORT    ESSAYS   IN 

apostles,  with  all  the  force  and  energy  with  which  they 
expressed  them,  and  make  no  effort  to  extenuate  the 
terrors  which  they  convey. 

Bro.  Harris  is  undoubtedly  correct  in  what  he  says 
at  the  close  of  his  note:  "I  think  if  our  preachers  would 
give  the  same  message  that  Jesus,  Paul  and  John  the 
Baptist  did,  we  would  see  greater  consecration  and 
activity  in  the  church  and  more  souls  saved." 


[Sept.  17,  1904.] 

THE    PRAYER    OF    NABONIDUS. 

The  readers  will  remember  that  the  skeptics  and  de- 
structive critics  in  general  universally  denied  that  such 
a  man  as  Belshazzar,  mentioned  in  the  fifth  chapter  of 
Daniel,  ever  existed,  until  they  were  refuted  by  the  dis- 
covery of  an  inscribed  tablet  containing  a  prayer  of  his 
father  Nabonidus,  king  of  Babylon,  in  which  the  son's 
name  is  mentioned.  It  may  be  a  matter  of  interest  to 
our  readers  generally  to  see  a  copy  of  this  prayer.  I 
find  a  translation  of  it  in  the  June  number  of  the  Biblical 
World,  made  by  Robert  Francis  Harper.  The  prayer 
was  offered  at  the  dedication  of  a  temple  which  Nabon- 
idus had  erected  in  honor  of  the  moon-god  Sin,  and  it 
reads  as  follows : 

O  Sin,  lord  of  the  gods,  king  of  the  gods  of  heaven  and 
earth,  the  god  of  gods  who  inhabit  the  great  heavens,  upon  thy 
joyful  entrance  into  that  temple  may  the  good  be  done  to  Esagila, 
Ezida  (and)  E-gish-shir-gal,  the  temple  of  thy  great  divinity,  be 
established  on  thy  lips. 

And  do  thou  implant  the  fear  of  thy  great  divinity  in  the 
hearts  of  its  people,  that  they  may  not  sin  against  thy  great 
divinity,  (and)  like  the  heavens  may  their  foundations  stand  fast. 

As  for  me,  Nabonidus,  king  of  Babylon,  save  me  from  sin- 
ning against  thy  great  divinity. 

A  life  of  far  distant  days  grant  me  as  a  present. 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  461 

And  as  regards  Belshazzar,  the  first-born  son,  my  offspring, 
do  thou  implant  in  his  heart  the  fear  of  thy  great  divinity. 
May  he  not  fall  into  sin. 
May  he  be  satisfied  with  fulness  of  life. 

It  would  be  well  to  make  a  study  of  this  prayer  by  a 
heathen  king,  and  to  compare  it  with  the  prayers  of 
Jews  and  Christians. 


[July  23,  1904.] 

IXSPIRATIOX. 

The  word  "inspiration"  has  come  to  be  used  in  a 
multitude  of  senses,  and  it  is  sometimes  used  with  no 
sense  at  all.  A  striking  example,  which  the  reader  may 
classify  as  he  thinks  best,  is  found  in  the  introduction 
to  Lobstein's  work  on  the  virgin  birth  of  Christ,  and  the 
passage  has  been  recently  quoted  with  apparent  approval 
in  the  Biblical  JTorld.  This  introduction  was  written  by 
W.  D.  Morrison,  and  the  passage  reads  as  follows : 

The  literal  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  that  is  to  say,  the  in- 
spiration of  the  exact  forms  in  which  the  religious  truth  is 
expressed  in  Holy  Writ,  has  been  abandoned  by  all  thoughtful 
Christian  teachers  as  an  utterly  untenable  position.  The  inspira- 
tion of  the  Bible  is  confined  to  its  eternal  religious  substance, 
and  does  not  extend  to  the  external  forms  in  which  the  Bible 
expresses  religious  truth   (pp.  13.  14). 

As  is  usual  with  this  class  of  writers,  this  author 
expresses  himself  in  a  style  that  is  vague  and  intangible. 
I  would  be  glad  to  ask  him  what  he  means  by  "inspira- 
tion of  the  exact  forms  in  which  religious  truths  are 
expressed  in  Holy  Writ."  For  example,  here  is  a  relig- 
ious truth:  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be 
saved."  W^iat  is  the  exact  form  in  which  this  religious 
truth  is  expressed,  the  inspiration  of  which  has  been 
abandoned  by  all  thoughtful  Christian  teachers  as  utterly 


462  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

untenable?  Here  is  another:  "If  Christ  has  not  been 
raised,  then  is  our  preaching  vain,  and  your  faith  also 
is  vain."  What  is  the  exact  form  in  which  this  truth  is 
expressed,  the  inspiration  of  which  has  been  abandoned? 
I  might  go  on  to  specify  hundreds  of  other  examples, 
but  evidently  the  writer,  in  making  the  remarks  which  I 
have  quoted,  had  no  particular  religious  truths  in  his 
mind.  Had  he  thought  of  the  specifications  necessary  to 
the  support  of  his  proposition,  it  is  probable  that  he 
would  not  have  written  it.  It  is  only  when  making  a 
wide  sweep  at  the  whole  Bible,  with  no  particular  pas- 
sage of  it  in  view,  that  such  a  sweeping  declaration  could 
be  made.  Again,  I  would  like  the  privilege  of  asking 
what  is  meant  by  "the  eternal  religious  substance,"  as 
distinguished  from  "the  external  forms  of  expression." 
I  would  like  for  Mr.  Morrison,  or  some  other  scholar 
with  a  dim  conception  of  inspiration,  to  tell  us  what  is 
meant  by  the  exact  form  and  what  is  the  eternal  sub- 
stance of  the  truth,  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved ;"  and  then  I  would  like  to  have  the  same 
distinction  made  with  respect  to  the  statement,  "H  Christ 
hath  not  been  raised,  our  preaching  is  vain,  and  your 
faith  is  also  vain."  And  if  satisfactory  answers  respect- 
ing these  two  passages  were  obtained,  I  presume  we 
should  have  these  two  truths  expressed  in  better  forms 
than  those  employed  in  the  Scriptures.  There  would  be 
an  improvement  on  the  phraseology  of  Jesus  and  Paul. 
We  should  have  "the  inspired  eternal  substance"  of  these 
two  statements  unencumbered  by  the  "uninspired  forms" 
in  which  they  are  expressed.  What  a  great  blessing  it 
would  be  to  have  the  whole  Bible  released  from  the 
bondage  of  its  uninspired  forms  of  expression,  leaving 
us  only  its  "inspired  and  eternal  substance" !  No  wonder 
that  several  gentlemen  have  suggested  the  idea  of  a  new 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  463 

Bible;  and  I  wish  that  some  of  them  would  hurry  up  and 
give  us  a  few  chapters  as  specimens  in  advance.  I  am 
anxious  to  see  them. 

The  trouble  with  all  these  loose  thinkers  on  the  sub- 
ject of  inspiration  is  that  they  totally  disregard  the  state- 
ments on  the  subject  found  in  the  Scriptures  themselves. 
It  might  sober  the  minds  of  many  of  them  if  they  would 
"read,  study  and  inwardly  digest"  the  following  state- 
ments by  the  apostle  Paul : 

"Things  which  eye  saw  not.  and  ear  heard  not,  and  which 
entered  not  into  the  heart  of  man  ;  whatsoever  things  God  hath 
prepared  for  them  that  love  him ;  but  mito  us  God  revealed  them 
through  the  Spirit:  for  the  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea,  the 
deep  things  of  God :  for  who  among  men  knoweth  the  things  of 
a  man  save  the  spirit  of  the  man  which  is  in  him?  Even  so  the 
things  of  God  none  knoweth  save  the  Spirit  of  God.  But  we 
received,  not  the  spirit  of  the  world,  but  the  spirit  which  is  of 
God,  that  we  might  know  the  things  which  are  freely  given  to 
us  by  God.  \\hich  things  also  we  speak,  not  in  words  which 
man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy  Spirit  teacheth" 
(i  Cor.  2:9-13). 

If  these  gentlemen  have  sufficient  respect  for  the 
apostle  Paul  to  believe  what  he  here  says  in  regard  to 
the  words  in  wdiich  he  and  other  inspired  men  expressed 
the  truths  revealed  by  the  Spirit,  they  should  pause  upon 
this  passage  and  give  it  due  consideration.  I  think  it 
would  also  help  to  clarify  their  thought  on  the  subject, 
if  they  w^ould  duly  consider  certain  statements  made  by 
the  Lord  Jesus  himself. 

For  example,  "The  Comforter,  even  the  Holy  Spirit 
whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he  shall  teach 
you  all  things,  and  bring  to  your  remembrance  all  that 
I  have  said  to  you"  (John  14:26).  Was  this  promise 
fulfilled?  If  it  was,  why  all  this  questioning  by  mystified 
critics  as  to  wdiether  the  words  of  Jesus  were  correctly 


464  SHORT  ESSAYS   IN 

reported  by  these  apostles?  And  if  all  things  He  spoke 
to  them  which  their  natural  memory  did  not  retain  were 
thus  recalled  after  many  years  by  the  Spirit  within  them, 
what  kind  of  inspiration  was  this? 

Again:  "When  they  lead  you  to  judgment,  and  de- 
liver you  up,  be  not  anxious  beforehand  what  ye  shall 
speak :  but  whatsoever  shall  be  given  you  in  that  hour 
that  speak  ye ;  for  it  is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Holy 
Spirit."  Are  we  to  understand  from  this  statement  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  apostles  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  exact  forms  in  which  religious  truths  were  expressed 
by  them?  H  so,  how  can  we  account  for  the  exact 
forms  in  which  Jesus  expressed  these  promises?  H  he 
did  not  mean  exactly  what  he  said,  what  did  he  mean, 
and  what  means  have  we  of  ascertaining  what  he  meant? 
When  a  man  writes  or  speaks  about  inspiration,  if  he 
does  not  allow  such  passages  as  these  to  guide  and  con- 
trol his  thought  on  the  subject,  he  is  lost  in  the.  fog,  he 
is  at  sea  without  chart  or  compass,  and  what  he  may 
say  is  no  more  to  be  regarded  than  the  idle  wind.  If 
there  was  such  a  thing  as  inspiration,  it  consisted  in  a 
direct  action  of  the  Spirit  of  God  upon  the  spirit  of 
inspired  men.  Anything  else  than  this,  or  anything  less 
than  this,  is  not  the  thing.  The  very  beginning  of  in- 
spiration in  the  experience  of  the  apostles  was  when  they 
spoke  in  other  tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utter- 
ance. This  is  a  complete  refutation  of  all  the  vague 
and  intangible  theories  of  inspiration  which  these  loose 
thinkers  have  furnished  us  with,  and  one  of  the  clearest 
evidences  of  this  truth  is  found  in  the  efforts  made  by 
them  to  explain  away  the  facts  in  this  case,  which  are 
represented  by  Luke  in  language  that  is  as  unmistakable 
as  any  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament,  or  in  any 
other  book. 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  46= 


It  would  be  well  for  all  of  our  teachers  aud  preachers 
to  make  a  new  study  of  the  Scripture  statements  on  the 
subject  of  inspiration.  If  we  speak  not  of  the  inspira- 
tion that  is  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures,  let  us  drop  the 
word  and  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  it. 


I  Sept.  17.  1904-] 

PAUL'S    FOUR    HUNDRED    AXl)    THIRTY 
YEARS. 

Earl  Lockhart  writes  me  the  following  note: 
Paul,  speaking  of  the  law.  says  it  came  430  years  after  the 
promise  given  to  Abraham  (Gal.  3:  16.  17).  Ex.  12:40  has  these 
words:  "Xow  the  sojourning  of  the  children  of  Israel  which  they 
sojourned  in  Egypt,  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years."  How 
do  you  reconcile  the  two  statements? 

Paul  quoted  from  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament  (the  Septuagint),  which  was  then  in  use 
among  all  the  Jews  except  some  few  learned  men  in 
Palestine  who  could  read  Hebrew.  This  translation 
reads  in  Ex.  12:40,  "The  sojourning  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  which  they  sojourned  in  Egypt  and  in  Canaan, 
was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years."  If  this  translation 
was  correct,  Paul's  statement  was  exact ;  but  whether  it 
was  or  not,  if  he  had  given  any  different  figures,  every 
one  of  his  readers  acquainted  with  the  passage  in  Ex- 
odus would  have  charged  him  with  making  a  mistake. 
If  the  figures  in  the  translation  were  incorrect.  Paul 
might  still  have  used  them  ;  for  his  argument  is  that,  as 
the  law  came  after  the  promise  had  been  made,  it  could 
not  invalidate  the  promise  :  and  this  is  true,  whether  it 
came  430  years  later,  or  1,030. 

If  P)ro.  Lockhart  were  to  complain  to  me  that  a  grad- 
uate of  our  college  had  done  some  disgraceful  thing  and 


466  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

should  hold  the  college  responsible  for  it,  I  might  reply 
that  it  was  done  ten  years  after  he  left  college.  He 
might  answer,  Yes,  it  was  fifteen  years  after  he  left ; 
but,  if  so,  he  w^ould  not  be  invalidating  my  defense,  but 
only  making  it  more  forcible.  So,  if  we  say  that  the 
Greek  translation  is  wrong,  that  the  real  time  between 
the  law  and  the  promise  was  645  years,  Paul's  argument 
is  not  invalidated,  but  strengthened. 

If  any  one  still  demands  why  Paul  accepted  a  wrong 
rendering  in  the  Greek  translation,  I  answer  that  we 
must  first  determine  wdiether  it  is  a  wrong  rendering. 
It  is  true  that  our  present  Flebrew  copies  make  the 
sojourn  in  Egypt  alone  430  years,  and  as  the  promise  to 
Abraham  was  first  made  215  years  before  Israel  went 
into  Egypt,  the  time  from  the  promise  to  law  was  645 
years ;  but  who  knows  whether  the  Hebrew  text  at  the 
time  the  Greek  version  was  made  did  not  read  as  that 
version  represents  it,  and  that  the  words  "and  in  Canaan" 
have  been  since  dropped  out  by  copyists?  This  question 
in  textual  criticism  has  to  be  settled  before  we  can  say 
that  Paul  accepted  an  incorrect  rendering.  It  is  highly 
probable,  too,  that  Paul  had  never  read  Hebrew  in 
Exodus,  and  that  he  quoted  it  as  many  English  scholars 
now  quote  passages  in  the  old  English  version  which  are 
not  correctly  translated.  It  is  sometimes  better  to  do 
this  than  to  stop  and  correct  the  rendering,  though  it 
should  never  be  done  when  one's  argument  is  dependent 
upon  the  incorrect  rendering. 


[June  II,  1904.1 

WORDS    WITHOUT    MEANING. 

We    clip    the    following    short    paragraph    from    the 
Western  Recorder  of  May  26: 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  467 

Prof.  Shailer  Matthews,  of  the  Baptist  Divinity  School  in 
Chicago,  said  in  a  recent  speech  in  that  city,  "Christianity  gave 
value  to  Christ's  teaching,  and  not  Christ's  teaching  to  Christian- 
ity." There  may  lie  some  meaning  in  those  words  consistent  with 
belief  in  our  Lord  as  the  mighty  God  and  the  atoning  Saviour, 
but  it  does  not  appear. 

The  Recorder  thinks  that  there  may  be  some  mean- 
ing in  these  words  of  Professor  Matthews  consistent 
with  behef  in  our  Lord;  but  if  they  have  any  meaning  at 
all,  consistent  or  inconsistent,  it  does  not  appear  to  me. 
It  is  characteristic  of  many  men  with  the  critical  views 
espoused  by  Professor  ^latthews  often  to  employ  words 
without  meaning. '  Ry  the  by,  I  am  not  sure  President 
Harper  will  thank  the  Recorder  for  representing  that 
Divinity  School  as  a  Baptist  institution  ;  and  I  am  sure 
that  the  Recorder  is  not  anxious,  by  the  use  of  that  title, 
to  claim  fellowship  with  it. 


[July  23,  1904.1 

WHAT    DID    PAUL    :\IEAN? 

Paul's  well-known  statement  about  the  inspiration  of 
the  Scriptures,  in  2  Tim.  3:  16,  has  been  translated  into 
English  in  three  different  forms.  The  A.  \\  renders  it, 
"All  scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is 
profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for 
instruction  in  righteousness,"  etc.  The  R.  W  gives  it, 
"Every  scripture  inspired  of  God  is  also  profitable  for 
teaching,"  etc. :  and  it  gives  as  an  alternative  rendering, 
"Every  scripture  is  inspired  of  God,  and  is  profitable," 
etc.  H  the  A.  W  rendering  is  correct,  then  the  word 
"scripture"  undoubtedly  means  the  Old  Testament,  and 
the  apostle  asserts  that  it  is  all  inspired  of  God.  If 
either   of   the   renderings   in   the    R.    \\    is   correct,   the 


468  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

term  "every  scripture,"  if  it  stood  alone,  might  mean 
any  scripture  or  writing  whatever,  whether  in  the  Old 
Testament  or  not.  But  it  does  not  stand  alone.  It  is 
connected  in  the  immediate  context  with  the  "sacred 
writings,"  or  "the  holy  scriptures,"  in  which  Timothy 
had  been  instructed  from  his  childhood,  and  these  are 
undoubtedly  the  Old  Testament  writings.  Now,  whether 
Paul,  speaking  of  these,  says,  "Every  scripture  is  in- 
spired of  God  and  profitable,"  or  "every  scripture  in- 
spired of  God  is  profitable,"  he  in  either  case  recognizes 
the  inspiration  of  the  writing  referred  to,  in  the  one  case 
assuming  it,  and  in  the  other  asserting  it.  All  three  of 
the  renderings,  therefore,  convey  the  positive  testimony 
of  Paul  to  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament, 
while  the  one  in  the  text  of  the  R.  V.  carries  with  it  the 
idea  that  if  any  other  Scripture  than  those  in  the  Old 
Testament  is  inspired  of  God,  it  also  is  profitable  for 
the  same  divine  purposes. 


[Aug.  17,  1904.] 

ONE  OF  THE  ASSURED  RESULTS. 

Prof.  Goldwin  Smith  is  recognized  as  a  man  of 
marked  ability,  and  his  observations  on  any  subject  that 
engages  his  pen  are  received  with  great  respect.  The 
May  number  of  the  North  American  Rci'iczu  contains  an 
article  from  him  on  "The  Immortality  of  the  Soul,"  in 
the  course  of  which  he  very  plainly  indicates  his  judg- 
ment as  to  the  practical  effect  of  higher  criticism  and 
the  doctrine  of  evolution.     He  says: 

It  would  seem  that  we  have  come  practically  to  a  point  at 
which,  evolution  and  the  higher  criticism  having  between  them 
done  the  work  of  demolition,  and  the  work  of  reconstruction,  if 
it  is  ever  to  be  done,  being  still  in  the  future,  no  small  part  of 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  469 

educated  mankind  has  renounced,  or  is  gradually  renouncing,  the 
hope  of  a  future  life  and  acting  on  the  belief  that  death  ends  all. 

It  is  entirely  certain  that  this  state  of  mind  has  been 
reached  already  by  all  that  part  of  mankind  who  accept 
the  teaching  of  the  masters  of  "higher  criticism,"  for 
they  have  all  renounced  the  authority  of  the  only  teach- 
ers the  world  has  ever  known  who  could  assure  us  of 
eternal  life.  It  is  equally  certain  that  those  who  have 
accepted  in  part  the  teaching  of  these  masters,  while  still 
struggling  against  the  acceptance  of  their  final  conclu- 
sion, are  involved  in  a  logical  inconsistency  which  must 
keep  them  trembling  between  hope  and  despair  with 
reference  to  the  future.  They  can  not  fail  to  hear  at 
times  the  ringing  cry  of  the  inspired  apostle,  that  if  Christ 
hath  not  been  raised  from  the  dead,  they  that  have  fallen 
asleep  in  Christ  have  perished.  To  renounce  the  hope 
of  the  future  life  is  to  live  for  this  life  alone  ;  and  all 
who  have  thus  lived  have  been  either  stoics  or  epicure- 
ans. Preachers  are  sometimes  rebuked  for  making  too 
much  of  the  future  life  and  too  little  of  the  life  that 
now  is ;  but  he  who  insists  the  most  on  the  value  of  the 
former  is  most  effectually  emphasizing  the  importance 
of  the  latter,  seeing  that  only  by  right  living  now  can 
the  future  life  be  secured.  If  Goldwin  Smith  has  not 
misjudged  the  situation,  the  man  who  fights  against 
evolution  and  the  "higher  criticism"  is  fighting  for  life — 
for  that  future  life  without  which  this  present  life  is  such 
that  it  were  good  for  a  man  if  he  had  never  been  bom. 


[Sept.  24.  1904.] 

PROFESSOR    KENT    SLANDERS    GIDEON. 

While  Prof.  Charles  Foster  Kent  was  assistant  pro- 
fessor of  Biblical  literature  and  historv  in  Brown  Uni- 


470  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

versity,  he  published  a  book  of  moderate  size  entitled 
''A  History  of  the  Hebrew  People  from  the  Settlement 
in  Canaan  to  the  Division  of  the  Kingdom."  Since  he 
has  become  "Woolsey  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature 
in  Yale  University,"  he  has  published  a  much  larger 
work  covering  much  of  the  same  ground,  bearing  the 
title,  "The  Student's  Old  Testament  History,"  or  "The 
Beginnings  of  Hebrew  History,  from  the  Creation  to  the 
Establishment  of  the  Hebrew  Kingdom."  In  both  of 
these  he  exhibits  the  history  in  the  perverted  form  which 
has  been  imposed  upon  it  by  destructive  critics.  In  the 
preface  to  the  latter  volume  he  acknowledges  his  espe- 
cial indebtedness  to  Professors  Driver  and  Cheyne,  and 
it  is  easy  to  see  that  he  has  followed  the  latter  more 
implicitly  than  the  former,  thus  making  his  work  the 
more  destructive  of  the  history,  which  he  professedly 
sets  forth.  A  volume  as  large  as  his  first  could  be  filled 
with  a  statement  of  the  perversions  of  history  of  which 
he  is  guilty,  but  I  propose  to  limit  this  article  to  the 
manner  in  which  he  deals  with  one  of  the  noblest  and 
most  heroic  of  ancient  Hebrews. 

He  robs  Gideon  of  all  his  heroic  achievements  by 
rejecting  the  whole  of  his  history  except  his  pursuit  of 
the  Midianite  chiefs  beyond  the  Jordan  ;  and  he  resolves 
that  into  a  mere  family  blood  feud  in  revenge  for  the 
killing  of  his  five  brothers.  He  covers  the  ground  in 
the  following  few  liiic  v/hich  I  copy  from  the  earlier 
work : 

A  seeming  accident  called  him  forth.  In  one  of  their  plun- 
dering forays,  a  band  of  Midianites  penetrated  to  the  vicinity  of 
Mount  Tabor  to  the  north  of  Esdraelon ;  there  they  were  resisted 
by  men  of  the  sub-tribe  of  Abiezer.  In  the  skirmish  some  of  the 
Hebrews  were  slain.  Among  others  were  the  brothers  of  a  cer- 
tain Jeriibl)aal,  better  known  to  later  generations  as  Gideon  (the 
hewer).     The   sacred   law   of   blood-revenge   imperatively   com- 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  471 

manded  him  to  avenge  this  deed.  Gathering  a  small  band,  three 
hmidred  of  his  household  retainers,  he  set  out  to  overtake  the 
marauders  and  slay  the  princes  whose  hands  had  been  stained 
with  his  brothers'  blood    (p.  79). 

This  representation  leaves  out  of  the  account  (iideon's 
wonderful  faith  in  God,  his  low  estimate  of  himself,  and 
his  astonishing-  victory  over  the  Midianite  host,  thus  rob- 
bing him  of  the  chief  part  of  his  glory,  and  it  leaves  him 
only  the  least  creditable  part  of  his  achievements.  Had 
this  been  all  that  was  known  of  him,  he  would  never 
have  been  enrolled  among  the  heroes  of  history. 

But  the  worst  part  of  this  Professor's  performance 
has  reference  to  Gideon's  conduct  after  his  return  from 
the  pursuit  of  the  princes.  The  history  reads  thus: 
"Then  the  men  of  Israel  said  to  Gideon,  Rule  thou  over 
us,  both  thou  and  thy  son,  and  thy  son's  son  also ;  for 
thou  hast  saved  us  out  of  the  hand  of  Midian.  And 
Gideon  said  to  them,  I  will  not  rule  over  you,  neither 
shall  my  son  rule  over  you :  Jehovah  shall  rule  over 
you."  In  this  refusal  to  accept  the  throne,  offered  by 
a  grateful  people,  our  own  great  Washington  found  a 
model,  and  the  greatness  of  his  soul,  as  all  men  have 
seen  it,  was  made  manifest  chiefly  by  his  imitation  of 
the  Hebrew  patriot.  Rut  Professor  Kent  and  the  critics 
of  his  ilk  can  not  bear  to  let  Gideon  wear  this  crown 
of  his  glory.  They  deliberately,  and  as  if  maliciously, 
snatch  it  from  his  head.  After  quoting  the  proposal  of 
the  people,  the  Professor  says: 

Thus  simply  and  naturally  was  the  idea  of  the  kingship  intro- 
duced into  Hebrew  life.  According  to  the  narrative,  the  conquer- 
ing hero  refused  the  offer ;  but  acts  speak  louder  than  words  in 
the  past,  as  well  as  the  present.  With  the  gold  of  the  spoils 
captured  from  the  Midianites,  he  proceeded  at  once  to  make  an 
ephod.  This  image,  overlaid  with  gold,  he  set  up  at  his  home 
and   future  capital,    Ophrah,   thereby   making   this   the    religious 


4/2  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

as  well  as  the  political  center  of  the  kingdom  which  he  forthwith 
established.  Like  Solomon  and  Jerol)oam  I.  in  later  times,  he 
doubtless  sought  by  this  means  to  rally  about  his  throne  the 
religious  zeal  as  well  as  the  patriotism  of  his  followers,  and  thus 
insure  its  stability   (p.  8i). 

Here  we  have  a  fair  specimen  of  destructive  criti- 
cism, and  at  the  same  time  one  of  what  our  "modern 
scientific  historical  critics"  would  style  constructive  criti- 
cism. It  destroys  completely  the  history  of  Gideon,  as 
given  in  the  Bible,  a  history  which  places  him  among 
the  noblest  of  noble  men,  and  it  constructs  a  story  which 
degrades  him  to  the  level  of  a  Bedawin  sheik  of  the 
present  day  ;  and  it  makes  him  hypocritically  pretend  to 
decline  a  kingdom  in  the  very  act  of  establishing  one. 
If  Gideon  had  now  any  living  relatives,  they  would  have 
ground  in  this  pretended  history  for  a  libel  suit  against 
Professor  Kent,  and  in  any  just  court  they  could  recover 
heavy  damages.  It  is  bad  enough  to  slander  the  living ; 
it  is  much  worse  to  slander  the  dead. 

There  is  another  aspect  of  this  perverted  history 
which  shows  the  folly  of  the  writer  as  plainly  as  it 
does  his  unfriendliness  to  Gideon.  He  admits  that 
after  Gideon's  return  from  the  pursuit  of  the  Midian- 
ite  princes,  the  people  of  Israel  proposed  that  he  and 
his  descendants  should  rule  over  them.  Did  they  do  this 
simply  because,  like  every  other  hot-headed  Israelite 
under  similar  circumstances,  he  had  wrought  blood- 
revenge  upon  the  slayers  of  his  brothers?  What  was 
there  in  that  to  call  forth  such  an  offer?  Evidently 
Professor  Kent  did  not  see  what  this  offer  implies.  It 
implies  that  Gideon  had  wrought  just  such  a  national 
deliverance  as  the  one  which  he  recklessly  excludes  as 
unhistorical.  While  he  was  denying,  he  ought  to  have 
denied  the  wdiole  story  of  Gideon.     A  man  had  just  as 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  473 

well  be  haiii^-ecl  for  stealing  a  sheep  as  for  stealing  a 
lamb;  so  when  a  critic  undertakes  to  deny  a  part  of  a 
Bible  narrative,  his  sin  is  no  greater  if  he  denies  the 
whole  of  it,  and  he  is  less  likely  to  expose  his  folly. 

We  might  suppose  that  in  the  course  of  the  eight 
years  which  intervened  between  the  publication  of  the 
first  and  second  of  his  two  books,  Professor  Kent  may 
have  relented  his  harsh  judgment  of  Gideon,  but,  though 
he  says  less  about  it,  he  still  adheres  to  it ;  for  he  says : 
The  sequel  of  23  is  29.  which  in  turn  is  quite  unrelated  to 
the  context.  This  citation  from  a  later  source  may  well  have 
supplanted  an  older  narrative,  which  told  of  the  establishment  of 
the  kingdom  of  Gideon,  which  is  implied  in  the  Judcan  parallel 
and  in  9  (p.  33o). 

This   mode   of   treating   the    sacred    record   and   the 
characters  of  holy  men,  would  not  be  so  serious  if  its 
author  was  a  private  citizen  exerting  no  unusual  influ- 
ence over  the  minds  of  the  young.     But  it  comes  from 
the  pen  and  brain  of  a  theological  professor  in  one  of 
our  most   famous  universities.     It  is  the  kind  of  stuff 
with  which  the  minds  of  the  young  men  preparing  for 
the  ministry  are  annually  crammed  in  the  lecture-room  ; 
and  these  young  men,   unless  they  have  been   fortified 
against  the  teaching  of  their  professor  by  previous  drill 
in  the  knowledge  of  the  Bible,  an  advantage  which  few 
of    them    possess,    will    almost    necessarily    imbibe    the 
poison  and  dole  it  out  afterward  to  those  who  shall  be 
so  unfortunate  as  to  be  their  hearers.     Xo  wonder  that 
so   many   pulpits    are   being   occupied    by    half-skeptical 
preachers.      Not  only   so,  but  the   thousands   of   yoimg 
men  in  the  other  departments  of  the  university  are  quick 
to   learn   that   such   teaching   abounds   in   the   "Divinity 
School,"  and  it  works  like  leaven  in  their  minds  to  the 
destruction  of  their  faith. 


474  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

The  remedy  for  this  evil  is  to  be  found  in  so  arousing" 
public  indignation  as  to  cripple  the  patronage  of  univer- 
sities whose  governing  bodies  are  so  reckless  as  to  place 
such  men  in  professors'  chairs.  The  time  has  been  when 
no  man  who  had  the  heart  to  undermine  the  faith  of  the 
young  men  could  be  tolerated  as  a  college  professor. 
That  time  should  come  again,  and  it  zvill. 


[Xov.  12.  1904.] 
WHAT    WOULD    BE    LEFT? 

Under  the  heading,  "Canon  Hensen's  Warning,"  the 
Independent  of  April  28  had  an  editorial  in  which  it  dis- 
cussed the  question,  "What  will  be  left  of  Christianity 
if  everything  about  Christ  in  the  Apostles'  Creed  is 
given  up — as,  it  appears  to  us.  Canon  Hensen  gives  it  up 
— except  that  he  suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate,  was 
crucified,  dead  and  buried?"  The  answer  is,  "Nothing 
but  his  teaching."  The  virgin  birth  goes  ;  the  miracles 
of  healing  become  nothing  more  than  what  faith-healers 
do  to-day ;  Lazarus  and  Jairus'  daughter  were  not  raised 
from  the  dead  ;  Jesus  was  crucified  and  did  not  rise  on 
the  third  day,  nor  did  he  ascend  into  heaven  in  the  sight 
of  the  wondering  throng  of  his  disciples.  Farther  on 
the  editor  again  answers :  "There  would  be  left  the  teach- 
ings of  Christ,  his  development  of  morals  and  religion, 
even  though  stripped  of  supernatural  authority."  He 
seems  to  think  that  with  this  much  left  we  could  get 
along  very  well ;  for  his  concluding  remark  is  this :  "For 
the  substance  of  Christianity  is,  after  all,  the  teachings 
of  Christ,  not  the  accounts  that  have  come  to  us  from  an 
uncritical  age  of  his  personal  life  and  death." 

The  editor  admits,  however,  that  "much  of  the  proof, 
if  not  the  assurance,  of  a  future  life,  would  be  lost;" 


BIBLICAL    CRITICISM  475 

''the  element  of  fear  of  the  consequences  of  sin  in  an- 
other Hfe  would  largely  be  removed;"  and  "the  danger 
would  be  the  loss  of  public  morality  when  its  spiritual 
sanctions  were  lost." 

It  is  very  strange  to  hear  this  editor  say  that  in  the 
case  supposed  the  teachings  of  Jesus  would  be  left  to  us, 
and  that  these,  and  not  anything  about  his  personal  life 
and  death,  are  the  substance  of  Christianity.  Would  his 
teaching  about  the  future  of  saints  and  the  future  of 
sinners  be  left  after  taking  away  the  miraculous  evi- 
dences of  his  power  to  speak  with  the  certainty  of  knowl- 
edge on  these  subjects?  Would  his  predictions  of  his 
own  death,  and  his  statements  of  the  design  of  it,  be 
left  to  us?  Would  his  afHrmations  about  his  relation  to 
God  and  to  men  be  left  to  us?  Would  we  still  have  the 
ordinances  of  the  church,  all  of  which  depend  on  his 
divine  authority  for  their  existence  and  their  perpetuity? 
Would  we  have  left  the  assurances  which  he  gave  that  he 
would  hear  and  answer  prayer,  and  rule  over  heaven  and 
earth  for  the  good  of  his  church?  Would  we  have  left 
anything  that  he  taught  with  satisfactory  evidence  that 
he  really  taught  it,  and  that  he  taught  as  one  having 
authority?  Would  we,  in  reality,  have  anything  left  but 
a  dead  Christ?  Would  we  not  be  compelled  to  stand 
forever  at  his  tomb  with  ]\Iary  Magdalene  crying, 
"They  have  taken  away  our  Lord,  and  we  know  not 
where  they  have  laid  him"  ?  The  man  who  can  give  the 
answer  given  by  the  Independent,  has  in  his  conception 
of  Christianity  no  redemption  from  sin  through  the 
blood  of  the  everlasting  covenant:  and  without  this  there 
is  no  "substance"  at  all  in  Christianity  ;  it  is  as  unsub- 
stantial as  the  fabric  of  a  dream.  We  shall  not  allow 
Canon  Hensen,  nor  all  the  hosts  of  infidelity  combined, 
to  take  from  us  a  single  item  of  the  history  contained  in 


4/6  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

our  four  Gospels.  On  the  contrary,  we  are  rapidly  losing, 
and  will  continue  to  lose,  respect  for  a  church  that  per- 
mits infidels  like  him  to  hold  its  high  offices  and  fatten 
on  its  rich  salaries. 


INov.  26,  1904.] 
AN    INFIDEL    TRACT. 

A  brother  has  sent  me  a  tract  issued  by  the  American 
Unitarian  Association,  Boston,  entitled  "Open  Inspira- 
tion vs.  a  Closed  and  Infallible  Bible."  Its  author  is 
Rev.  Charles  William  Pearson.  Mark  the  "Rev."  It 
contains  a  number  of  statements' which  illustrate  the  fact 
patent  to  all  observers  that  modern  Unitarianism  is  a 
system  of  disguised  infidelity. 

One  of  the  first  assertions  which  the  author  makes 
shows  him  to  be  blind  to  what  is  going  on  around  him. 
He  says:  "Modern  preaching  lacks  truth  and  power  be- 
cause so  many  churches  cling  to  an  utterly  untenable 
tradition  that  the  Bible  is  an  infallible  book." 

If  this  is  true,  we  should  expect  to  see  the  preachers 
who  deny  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible  exerting  great 
power  and  those  who  affirm  it  exerting  little  or  none. 
But  where  are  Unitarian  preachers  to-day?  Which  of 
them  is  a  power  for  righteousness  in  any  large  circle? 
On  the  other  hand,  I  wonder  if  this  blind  man  ever  saw 
or  heard  of  Spurgeon,  Moody,  and  others  who  believed 
in  an  infallible  Bible  and  preached  it  with  all  their  might, 
stirring  thereby  the  souls  of  thousands  wherever  they 
went?  Who  are  the  men  that  are  now  preaching  with 
power  throughout  the  land,  and  turning  sinners  to  the 
Lord  by  scores  and  hundreds?  Are  they  the  men  who 
deny  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible,  and  tell  the  people  that 
miracles  are  incredible?    He  can  not  point  to  one  of  this 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  477 

class  who  is  earning  his  sah  as  a  missionary  of  the  cross. 
Such  men,  if  preachers  at  all,  are  found,  as  a  rule,  doling 
out  their  doubts  and  speculations  to  dwindling  congrega- 
tions gathered  together  in  better  days  by  preachers  who 
believed  the  Bible.     Every  man  who  has  eyes  to  see  can 

see  this. 

In  the  same  strain  Rev.  Mr.  Pearson  says  ot  the 
churches  who  believe  in  an  infallible  Bible: 

This  dogma  is  their  besetting  sin.  It  is  the  golden  calf  of 
their  idolatrous  worship.  It  is  the  palpable  lie  that  gives  the  rmg 
of  insincerity  to  all  their  moral  exhortations.  It  theologians  wish 
to  regain  their  lost  intellectual  leadership,  or  even  to  possess  an 
influence  on  the  thoughtful  part  of  the  community,  co-ordmate 
with  that  of  poets,  philosophers  and  men  of  science,  they  must 
throw  aside  the  dogma  of  an  infallible  Bible  as  completely  and 
frankly  as  Protestants  have  thrown  aside  the  dogma  ot  an  infal- 
lible pope. 

\\'hile  he  was  at  it,  wh\-  did  he  not  tell  us  how  Uni- 
tarian preachers  are  to  gain  "an  induence  co-ordinate 
with  that  of  poets,  philosophers  and  men  of  science"  :^ 
If  belief  in  an  infallible  Bible  has  caused  those  who 
entertain  it  to  lose  power  and  prestige,  what  has  caused 
Unitarianism  to  grow  smaller  by  degrees  and  beautifully 
less  in  the  last  generation?  If  he  only  had  eyes  to  see, 
he  would  know  that  the  influence  of  all  the  poets,  philos- 
ophers and  men  of  science  of  this  age  is  not  comparable 
to  that  exerted  over  the  lives  and  consciences  of  men  by 
honest  and  courageous  preachers,  who  in  every  part  of 
their  own  and  other  lands,  even  in  heathen  land-,  are 
upholding  the  claims  of  Christ  and  the  apostles  and 
prophets^s  men  who  wrought  signs  and  wonders  whde 
proclaiming  the  infallible  word  of  God. 

On  another  page  Mr.  Pearson  is  candid  enough  to 
state  a  fact  which  some  writers  and  speakers  whose  posi- 
tions require  them  to  do  the  same,  uncandidly  refrain 


478  SHORT   ESSAYS   IN 

from.  It  is  this:  "It  is  impossible  to  draw  any  dividing 
line  between  the  aheged  miracles  of  the  Old  Testament 
and  similar  accounts  in  the  Gospels  and  Acts  of  the 
Apostles."  This  is  bold  and  candid,  and  it  appears  to 
me  nothing  short  of  cowardice  for  men  who  summarily 
l)ronounce  the  miraculous  accounts  in  the  Old  Testament 
unhistorical,  to  yet  admit  that  miracles  were  wrought  by 
Jesus  and  the  apostles.  I  have  far  more  respect  for  the 
intellectual  honesty  of  the  man  who  denies  all  miracles 
than  for  that  of  one  who  hedges  and  compromises  on 
this  vital  question.  I  like  a  whole  man  better  than  half 
a  man — a  whole  infidel  better  than  one  who  tries  to  be 
half-and-half. 

But  Mr.  Pearson  is  not  half-and-half.  He  cites  the 
case  of  the  three  Hebrews  thrown  by  Nebuchadnezzar 
into  the  fiery  furnace,  and  who  came  out  without  the 
smell  of  fire  on  their  persons,  and  he  says  it  must  be  a 
very  ignorant  man  who  believes  it.  This  shows  that  he 
is  a  greater  heathen  than  Nebuchadnezzar  himself,  who 
not  only  believed  it,  but  found  in  it  cause  for  proclaim- 
ing to  his  whole  kingdom  that  if  any  man  should  speak 
anything  amiss  against  the  God  of  Shadrach,  Meshach 
and  Abednego,  he  should  be  cut  to  pieces  and  his  house 
be  made  a  dunghill.  It  was  well  for  Mr.  Pearson  that 
he  was  not  living  then  in  Nebuchadnezzar's  kingdom. 
Old  Neb  had  no  use  for  such  skeptics  as  he. 


*To  THE  Lord  be  all  the  praise."     If  you  mean  it, 
don't  say  so  much  about  your  own  part  in  it. 


"Keep  up  with  the  procession."  The  circus  is 
passing  by,  and  the  crowd  of  hoodlums,  black  and  white, 
is  keeping  up  with  it.     Keep  up  with  the  procession,  or 


BIBLICAL   CRITICISM  479 

you  may  fail  to  see  the  monkeys,  the  big  snakes  and  the 
blind  gyascutus.  Don't  let  anybody  get  ahead  of  you  in 
running  after  the  new  fads.  If  you  do,  you  may  be  set 
down  as  a  slow  team. 


*'He  was  much  IX  EVIDENCE."  What  do  you  mean 
by  it?  If  you  mean  anything  in  particular,  why  not  say 
it,  instead  of  constantly  repeating  this  old  saw?  Or  is 
it  a  new  saw,  which  you  think  you  must  saw  with  before 
others  quit  sawing  with  it?  If  you  must  have  a  saw, 
don't  borrow  one  that  all  of  your  neighbors  have  used, 
but  get  one  of  your  own. 


\ 


Date  Due 

T"    •        -     •:  "  .      -w  •,  ^^ 

^6      ^, 

mi   'fcB" 

mm^ 

f?|¥W"V 

*S^ 

"15^ 

t 

f) 

1 

BS500.M14 

Short  essays  in  Biblical  criticism, 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00011   2567 


